Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

The announcement was made in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, Virtual Proceedings of the House of Lords will now begin. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege and that what we say is available to the public both in Hansard and to those listening and watching. Members’ microphones will initially be set to mute, and the broadcasting team will unmute their microphones shortly before we reach their place in the speakers’ list. When Members have finished speaking, their microphones will again be set to mute.
Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions will now start. I will call each Oral Question in the normal way, and supplementary questions will be asked in the order shown on the speakers’ list. Please ensure that questions and answers are short, because that helps everybody on the list. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to their supplementary question and returned to mute once their supplementary question has finished.

National Asylum Support Service
 - Question

Baroness Doocey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that those accommodated by the National Asylum Support Service are able to follow social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Question was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, we have worked  closely with Public Health England to ensure that asylum accommodation providers follow relevant guidance and are supporting asylum seekers to social distance within the accommodation estate. All supported asylum seekers receive translated guidance and increased contact management. In hostel-based accommodation, measures taken include segregation of symptomatic service  users, sequencing of mealtimes, two-metre marking to ensure social distancing and increased cleaning and hygiene regimes.

Baroness Doocey: I thank the Minister for that response, but what she has said is just not consistent in any way with the experience of charities working with these people on a daily basis. Refugee Action, Asylum Matters and the Scottish Refugee Council have described the situation in detention centres as life threatening. People are being forced to share kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms and sometimes even beds with complete strangers. This goes against everything the Government are advising. Will the Minister agree to meet me and some of these charities so that she can see for herself exactly what the situation is on the ground?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: We are working with accommodation providers and NGOs—and in the detention estate, as the noble Baroness outlines—to ensure that they are providing services to vulnerable asylum seekers. Our providers have identified vulnerable service users and are providing them with additional support, including supplying food parcels where needed. We have also procured 4,000 single hotel rooms to assist with initial asylum seekers at this time.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Lord Speaker for calling me and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for asking this Question. Is it not essential that all those dealing with asylum seekers constantly remember that these people—women, children and men—have been through terrible experiences, too often involving torture, which in many instances have left them scarred? Is it not therefore essential that, in all that we do, we take as warm and supportive an attitude as possible and that we avoid a minimalist, regimented regime? Should the good Samaritan not constantly be our example?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Some of these people will have had the most terrible experiences. Nobody whose asylum application is complete will be asked to leave the country. As I said, we are procuring 4,000 hotel rooms. People in both our asylum estate and our detention estate are treated as any other member of the public would be, whether they are vulnerable, as the noble Lord outlined, or not.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, it is not easy to provide a safe distancing policy in our overcrowded penal institutions. Once the state detains inmates, it assumes full responsibility for their safety and welfare. What effort has been made to ensure that people are released from detention centres to places of safety in the community? Will the Minister ensure that there is a moratorium on deportation until it is safe to deport people?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: As I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, at this point in time nobody whose case has been concluded and who is due to leave will be asked to leave. That will be the position up to June and possibly beyond. The noble Lord is absolutely right: the asylum estate has as many obligations in terms of social distancing as any other place in the UK. I do not think that deportations are happening at the moment either.

Baroness Pidding: My Lords, my question refers to the wider issue of migrants arriving in the UK. Last month, four boats carrying up to 57 migrants were intercepted by HM Coastguard and the Border Force in the English Channel. Can my noble friend reassure us that our coastguard and Border Force officers are adequately provided with PPE when dealing with such eventualities, and that any such migrants will be given health checks and monitored for signs of Covid-19?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My noble friend is absolutely right that migrants arriving in the UK should be assessed. Certainly, if they are being put into accommodation, we want to ensure that they are not Covid-positive. If anyone moved into initial accommodation —possibly a hostel-type arrangement—is symptomatic, they are moved into hotel-type accommodation so that they can segregate and isolate. I join calls every day with our Border Force colleagues, and I understand that their PPE requirements are adequate.

Baroness Coussins: My Lords, what advice and information on Covid-19 is available in languages other than English, in what format and in which languages? How is it made accessible to people needing help from the National Asylum Support Service, including through the use of registered public service interpreters?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, all asylum seekers currently accommodated in asylum support properties can receive advice on asylum support and associated Covid-19 guidance and signposting through our advice, issue reporting and eligibility provider, Migrant Help. They can contact Migrant Help 24 hours a day on a freephone number if they need assistance or guidance. The AIRE service provides all the current process, policy and health guidelines, as well as immediate access to service providers for escalation. The translated public health guidance is available in 12 languages, with instructions to service users.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, the daily asylum support rate of £5.39 is insufficient to meet health and hygiene needs. Will the Minister therefore undertake to press for an emergency uplift in line with UC as a matter of urgency?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: The noble Baroness might be pleased to know that we are currently reviewing the level of allowance, taking Covid-19 factors into consideration. However, I cannot promise uplifts to UC levels.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Doocey outlined the shocking plight of refugees, who are forced to make the impossible choice between enduring dangerously unsanitary conditions here or the dangers of returning home to the source of their persecution. I was very pleased to hear the Minister talk about the 4,000 hotel rooms that have been made available; we know that hotel chains have been very generous in their offer of rooms. How many refugees are currently staying in hotel  accommodation? How many are left living in other types of accommodation, and what are the plans to ensure that they have safe, sanitary conditions in which to sit out the pandemic?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: There are basically three types of accommodation: the initial, hostel-type accommodation facilities for people arriving here; hotel accommodation facilities, as the noble Baroness mentioned and as I pointed out earlier; and dispersed accommodation, which is where the significant majority of our service users reside. The latter consists of houses or homes of multiple occupancy, which obviously accommodate smaller numbers. I cannot give her the figures on hotel accommodation, but I can certainly write to or email her with these.

Lord Rosser: The Refugee Council has persistently campaigned for better access to healthcare for asylum seekers, noting that a lack of confidence in communicating in English and confusion over the support available act as huge obstacles. Will the Minister make urgent representations to the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that all asylum seekers have access to healthcare, and specifically testing, during the Covid-19 pandemic? Secondly, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, asked the Minister for a meeting. Did the Minister agree to that?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: I did not confirm that, but I am very happy to have a virtual meeting with the noble Baroness. On healthcare, as I said earlier, all asylum accommodation providers continue to provide translated public health guidance, which is available in 12 languages, and instructions to service users. Nobody, whether an asylum seeker or not, need worry that healthcare will not be available to them.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.

Africa: Support
 - Question

Lord Oates: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to African countries in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Question was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, DfID is rapidly adapting its bilateral programmes across Africa to help counter the health, humanitarian and economic impacts of Covid-19 in support of the most vulnerable and poorest people. We have provided health experts to give direct support to African countries, and  we have made significant contributions to the multilateral response. UK aid is also supporting a team at the WHO’s office in Brazzaville, to co-ordinate the regional response.

Lord Oates: My Lords, I commend the Minister and her department for the rapid deployment of financial support to the continent. As she will be aware, the gravest health risks facing African people may well arise from the economic impacts, rather than the disease impacts, of Covid, leading to a reduction in resources available for health services, spiralling hunger and an increase in other fatal diseases such as measles, polio and malaria. Can the Minister therefore tell the House what planning DfID is undertaking to ensure a co-ordinated and long-term approach to supporting and reviving African economies as they emerge from the immediate crisis?

Baroness Sugg: I agree with the noble Lord that the gravest health risks may come from the economic impacts. The UK is at the forefront of efforts to protect African economies. We are encouraging international financial institutions, UN agencies and others to co-ordinate to make funds available as quickly as possible. We have committed up to £150 million to the International Monetary Fund to help vulnerable countries meet debt repayments. In the longer term, we are providing technical assistance and capacity building to help support the African Union’s African continental free trade area, which offers the opportunity to kick-start regional trade and support the economic bounce back.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, if Covid-19 becomes endemic in African countries, it will remain a threat to the world for the foreseeable future? Would she consider convening a conference of Commonwealth African countries—after all, Nigeria, the largest country on the continent, is a Commonwealth country—to see whether the initiative can be taken on a Commonwealth basis?

Baroness Sugg: I thank my noble friend for that question. I absolutely agree that we need to tackle this pandemic globally. We are not going to resolve it within our own borders unless we help the rest of the world to tackle it too. I also agree on the importance of our Commonwealth relationships. Sadly, the CHOGM conference has been postponed, but I know that my noble friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister for the Commonwealth, is in regular contact with Commonwealth leaders so we can help each other to tackle the pandemic.

Lord Carrington: My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer as set out in the register. Could the Minister confirm that, in providing support to African and other eligible countries, careful consideration is given by DfID to purchasing suitable surplus agricultural products from British farmers as a result of the steep decline in demand from the food service sector, and that this is distributed as part of the aid budget to those countries experiencing desperate food shortages? A broadly similar policy has just been announced by the Canadian Government.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, we remain deeply concerned about the food security situation in Africa. In east Africa alone, nearly 25 million people are at crisis levels of food insecurity. We are supporting farmers in Africa in a number of ways through our global agriculture and food security programme and our adaptation for smallholder agriculture programme. On the export of food from the UK to Africa, I will have to take that back to the department and follow it up in writing to the noble Lord.

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: My Lords, the G7 is due to meet in the United States in June—or perhaps virtually. What action will the UK take to ensure that that summit addresses the economic fragility of sub-Saharan Africa, the supply chains and the international trade that has been disrupted as a result of the Covid-19 international lockdown, and not just the economic needs of the developed world?

Baroness Sugg: I assure the noble Lord that we will absolutely take into account the economic and supply chain impacts on the developing world. We have pre-meetings ahead of the G7 where that discussion is already happening, and I am sure it will be on the agenda for the summit.

Baroness Sheehan: My Lords, aid to developing countries is dwarfed by massive debt repayments to rich countries. Other than the G20’s decision to temporarily suspend debt payments, what further measures are being considered to alleviate the crippling debt so that health systems can be strengthened?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the suspension of debt repayments, which we argued for with the G20 and the Paris Club. I have already mentioned the £150 million going to the International Monetary Fund for catastrophe containment. We are also working closely with the private sector to see what we can do there and providing advice to developing countries on how best to respond to the economic impact of Covid-19.

Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Secretary-General of the UN’s High-level Advisory Board on Mediation. What specific steps are the Government taking to support the very successful call for a global ceasefire as it applies to sub-Saharan Africa, particularly among those countries that already have some kind of ceasefire in place, to support the mediation and peace process? I am of course referring to the Secretary-General’s call.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, we fully support the Secretary-General’s call for a ceasefire. We are working in countries, where it is relevant, to ensure that we are doing what we can. We do not need any further issues affecting people who are already impacted so heavily by Covid-19.

Lord Pickles: The Foreign Secretary yesterday warned about the criminal gangs and other supranational organisations seeking to disrupt a cure for Covid-19.  We have seen a rise in attacks on Chinese people in the United Kingdom and suggestions that the virus has been spread by Jewish people or by Muslims. What will my noble friend do in terms of offering advice to African countries to counter this kind of fake news, which could turn various communities against one another and be just as damaging as the disease itself?

Baroness Sugg: My noble friend will be aware of the programme that we have in this country to tackle fake news, but we have also announced support to tackle false claims and conspiracy theories in Africa, which may spread rapidly on social media and may even promote dangerous behaviour. Our support will be going to the Humanitarian to Humanitarian Network, which addresses the spread of misinformation during epidemics and will help to tackle specific mistruths in Africa.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the devastating effect of the combination of Covid-19 and famine caused by locusts sweeping across east Africa? As PPE is needed to fight coronavirus and locusts—both are growing simultaneously—supply chains are being badly affected in the worst affected countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and South Sudan. Can the Minister give some assurance that this lethal combination of locusts and coronavirus is being addressed as a priority?

Baroness Sugg: I can assure that the noble Baroness that it is. We are deeply concerned about the potential second wave of locusts coming into east Africa. We are working with other donors to support UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs to respond to coronavirus, and with the FAO on locusts. That includes helping the world’s poorest countries to access critical medical supplies, including PPE.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I welcome Monday’s pledge by the UK of £250 million at the virtual EU summit to boost public research funding for a new Covid vaccine. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any vaccine developed using UK public money will be accessible by and affordable for all?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, in fact, the UK co-hosted that summit along with the EU and we are absolutely committed to the WHO Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator to make sure that new vaccines are accessible by everyone.

Lord German: My Lords, I refer to my interests as listed in the register. There are Commonwealth countries in Africa that have no DfID representation within them. What are the Government doing to ensure that on-the-ground organisation is arranged for the aid that the UK is providing? Would the Minister consider using the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have relationships in some of these countries, to assist?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, as I said, the Commonwealth has an essential role to play in the global response to Covid-19. We obviously have a presence in the vast  majority of countries that need our presence and, where we do not, we work closely with international agencies to make sure that they are delivering the help needed on the ground. However, I will certainly take the noble Lord’s suggestion of working with other Governments back to the department.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Covid-19: Contact-tracing App
 - Question

Lord Clement-Jones: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to (1) protect the privacy of users, and (2) provide oversight, of the National Health Service’s COVID-19 contact-tracing application and, in particular, whether the application will meet Apple’s privacy standard for Bluetooth.
The Question was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, we have put privacy at the heart of the app and the way it works. It is designed so that you do not have to give up your personal details to use it. We have worked in partnership with both the National Cyber Security Centre and the Information Commissioner’s Office throughout. We continue to hold discussions with Apple and Google. The app uses only software development tools and mechanisms that are supported by Apple and Google.

Lord Clement-Jones: To be effective, achieve widespread adoption and ensure our safety, the new app needs to gain public trust. So, why have the Government developed a go-it-alone, centralised app which is not optimally privacy-preserving, not interoperable with the apps of other countries—not even Scotland, it seems —not fully compatible with the Apple and Google Bluetooth protocol, and has no mandatory oversight, time limit on its use or public data impact assessment?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, it is not a go-it-alone app; others are following our lead on this. It is interoperable, and we are working with other countries to make sure it is. Testing with the public has turned out to be extremely positive and we look forward to publishing the audit shortly.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, the importance of track, trace and isolate is beyond doubt, but what assurances can the Minister give to your Lordships’ House that this data, as part of data-sharing with the NHS, will be anonymised and protected to prevent information being used by others?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, the anonymised data-sharing is protected by the security protocols that have been agreed as part of the app’s governance. That governance is overseen by the ethics board, chaired by Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery from University College London, who previously headed the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what lessons Her Majesty’s Government have learned from South Korea and Taiwan, for example, which have been far more successful than the UK in testing, tracking and tracing, and hence reducing death rates? South Korea, with a population of 52 million, has had 252 deaths and Taiwan, with a population of 24 million, has had six deaths. Can the Minister explain to the House why the UK’s record looks comparatively so poor?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am in touch with both the South Korean and Taiwanese Governments, and we are greatly inspired by the throughly professional way in which they have gone about epidemic management. I commend both those countries and their efforts. However, the epidemic arrived in Britain in an incredibly fulsome way. The Chief Medical Officer has been very clear that if that had happened in either of those countries, their responses would have been similar to that of Britain. I defend the Government’s response to the epidemic.

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: My Lords, one of the core principles of data protection is to gather the minimum amount of data. I understand that one reason given by the NCSC for asking for partial postcodes on registration for the app is to assist with regional healthcare planning and to monitor potential Covid flare-ups. Can the Minister explain why data from Covid tests and NHS 111, for example, would not be sufficient to keep the transmission rate down in a post-lockdown test, track and trace strategy?

Lord Bethell: My noble friend Lady Blackwood is entirely right. The testing and the surveillance done by testing give us powerful insight into the demographic reach of the virus and information on a very broad basis on the regional reach, but we are looking for a much more granular level of detail from the very powerful, multimillion level of detail that the app can provide. The value of those surveillance details has led us to design the app in the way we have.

Lord Scriven: Matt Hancock has said that the app is to flag up our proximity to someone else using the app, not to track our movements. So why do the terms and conditions of the app request access to track our precise location based on GPS or network-based systems?

Lord Bethell: My Lords, the app works by using the Bluetooth tags which are shared once you have declared symptoms or you have had a positive test. It does not rely on GPS tracking. If the terms and conditions are broader, that is because we want to try to provide the most thorough set of conditions that encompass all  the data provided by the user’s telephone. However, I can reassure the House that it is Bluetooth tagging that is used by the app and the surveillance system.

Lord O'Shaughnessy: My Lords, what work is going on to make sure that the app that NHSX is developing is interoperable with other countries’ apps? Clearly we all want to get back to a situation where people can move freely from one country to another for business or leisure, so interoperation is important. I will be grateful if my noble friend can update us.

Lord Bethell: My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy is entirely right. We all wish to move as quickly as possible back to normal, but I am afraid that travel will be one of the aspects of our former lives that will be slowest to return. That said, we are working extremely hard with other countries to make sure that interoperability can be baked into our arrangements. Of course, the app has not yet been launched and few other countries are ahead of us. We sat with the Irish Government on 24 April in order to work out interoperability protocols since that border is the most important and proximate to us.

Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho: The Office for National Statistics tells us that the highest number of deaths is among the poorest communities at 55 in 100,000 versus 25 in 100,000 in other communities, yet they are also the most digitally excluded people. It is tragic that these inequalities mean that the contact-tracing app will not help those who most need it. What is the Government’s plan to address this enormous challenge?

Lord Bethell: The noble Baroness is entirely right to point to the importance of ensuring that the vulnerable are included. Of course, the app is not the only thing we are depending on. Manual track and trace in the conventional way of using a telephone and speaking to those who test positive will still be a core part of our track-and-trace arrangements. Efforts will be made to reach those who are vulnerable or digitally isolated to ensure that they have details of the provisions for these track-and-trace arrangements.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I would like to follow up on the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, because she has put her finger exactly on how this may not work because either our most vulnerable and poorest communities will not have the technology or there will be problems with language. I would like some more detail from the Minister about exactly how the Government intend to roll this out. Given that it took such a long time to roll out the NHS volunteers system, I feel that we might find ourselves with our most vulnerable and poorest communities disadvantaged.

Lord Bethell: The noble Baroness is entirely right to be concerned about the vulnerable and our approach. I completely share those concerns. It is a massive challenge, but that does not stop us embracing the advantages of technology where millions of transactions can be done in a day which could never be done by  more manual processes. An enormous amount will be invested in trying to reach out to those who are isolated, vulnerable or digitally excluded to ensure that they have details of our track-and-trace arrangements. Hiring an enormous army of track-and-trace experts has already begun, and details can be seen on my Twitter feed of how volunteers who have the right qualifications can join those efforts.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, if we are moving to a centralised app, what assurances do we have about how long the data will be stored? I see references to use for research purposes in various documents. Will there be careful safeguards about the deletion of the data after a certain period?

Lord Bethell: I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that sunset arrangements will form part of the conditions of the app and that they will be published shortly.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.

Israel: West Bank
 - Question

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the announcement by the government of Israel of its intention to commence discussions from 1 July on applying Israeli sovereignty to Jewish settlements and other territory in the occupied West Bank.
The Question was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, we are deeply concerned by reports that the new Israeli Government coalition have reached an agreement which may pave the way for annexation of parts of the West Bank. The United Kingdom’s position is clear: any unilateral moves towards annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel would be damaging to efforts to restart peace negotiations and contrary to international law.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: I thank the Minister for his Answer, but
“no country, however large, can dismember its neighbour and break international law without consequences.”
These are the words of Boris Johnson when Foreign Secretary, in an article published on 22 February 2018 criticising Russia for its annexation of Crimea. The Minister accepts, as I understand it, that the possible annexation by the Israeli Government of land on the West Bank would likewise be illegal, but otherwise the Government’s response is an exercise in hand-wringing,  as evidenced by the response today and by the answer given yesterday to the Written Question put down by my noble friend Lady Northover.
The possibility of a just, two-state solution is being dismantled before our eyes in favour of a one-state imposition, all endorsed by President Trump. What is the Government’s position? Do they accept the inevitability of annexation or will they condemn and seek to prevent it? We are entitled to know; the Palestinians are entitled to know as well.

Lord Fowler: Can we please have short questions? These are not speeches in a debate, it is Question Time.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the UK position is absolutely clear. Any unilateral moves towards annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel, as I have said, would be damaging to the restart of any peace negotiations and, as I say again, contrary to international law.

Lord Mann: : Calling for harm to Jews, holding the British-Jewish community responsible for the actions of Israel, suggestions of disloyalty, conspiracy or undue financial power and Nazi comparators are all outwith the agreed IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Does the Minister agree that robust criticism and debate, while vital for democracy, are undermined by those who demean and dehumanise through hateful and abusive language?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I agree with the noble Lord. As he will know, the Government are a strong supporter of the IHRA definition; in that regard, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Pickles. The United Kingdom stands very much on the sentiments that the noble Lord has expressed. Any kind of bigotry or hate against any community is unacceptable.

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom: My Lords, the last time I was in Israel, I told the mayor of Jerusalem that the settlements were a mistake. He said: “What do you want me to do, police the ethnicity of land sales between Israelis and Palestinians?” If most Palestinians recognise that a land swap for the settlement blocks is the pragmatic way forward, should not we in the UK be doing the same?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, our long-standing position remains that the United Kingdom believes in a peace negotiation, a settlement between both sides based primarily on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, as would allow understanding of the position on the ground. Our position in that regard has not changed.

Lord Fowler: I call the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon. He is not there. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that everyone who wishes the best of futures for both Israel and the Palestinian people should be giving all the support they can to the  people trying to bring about a two-state solution, and that therefore no support for any unilateral action should be given? It does not matter who is taking the unilateral action, whether it is Israel, the Palestinian people or any other actor in this conflict. Real friends of Israel should surely be against any unilateral action, which is bound to be only an obstacle on the road to peace, and that should apply to land annexation by Israel or calls from the Palestinians for boycotts and sanctions against Israel. Can the Minister confirm that the policy of Her Majesty’s Government is still to do everything to help bring about an agreed two-state solution for both parties?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I have already stated the Government’s position and I am happy to restate it. We believe in a two-state negotiated peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, the Israel Attorney-General’s office has warned the Israeli Prime Minister that annexation could trigger an International Criminal Court investigation into senior army officers and others. Will the Government co-operate if such an investigation occurs?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I am not going to speculate on what may or may not happen. It remains very clear that we support a negotiated settlement between both sides, as I have said. As for anything which the ICC brings forward, we are supporters of the ICC, as the noble Baroness will know.

Lord Polak: I refer the House to my interests as stated in the register. At his last speech to the Knesset on 5 October 1995 on the ratification of the Oslo accord, Yitzhak Rabin stated:
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley”.
Just one month later, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and others signed an Early Day Motion as a tribute to the murdered Prime Minister, describing him as
“a man of great courage and vision who led his country … along the path towards peace”.
The noble Lord was right to do so then and, I guess, would do so again. Does the Minister agree that the Council for Arab-British Understanding would be fulfilling its mission and be in tune with government policy by writing to the Palestinian leadership and other Arab states urging the Palestinians to sit down and talk peace directly with the Israelis?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the vision and the courage of the sadly passed-away Prime Minister Rabin. He brought peace to the region and his vision is what is needed now. Of course, I support all negotiated settlements, and we call upon both sides to sit down together and reach an agreement that works for Israel and for the Palestinians.

Baroness Deech: This proposal—so far it is only a proposal—over long-disputed territory has been taken out of context. I hope the Minister appreciates that. It relates to the Jordan valley, which has always  been part of likely land swaps. It forms part of an overall vision to have a Palestinian state in the remainder of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The outright rejection of the entire US plan and adherence to past, failed plans are certain to condemn all sides to continued conflict. The Saudis have called on the Palestinian leadership to engage in direct negotiations with Israel on the merits of the US proposals. Can the Minister tell the House whether the UK Government have made representations to the Palestinian National Authority to do the same and get on with negotiations?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we implore both sides to sit down and negotiate so that an agreement can be reached in the interests of both peoples.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, it is clear that annexation does not mean the takeover of the West Bank, but the takeover of some parts that have been on the table in every suggested peace deal for decades—namely, in land swaps such as in the Jordan river valley, as has been mentioned, in exchange for land elsewhere. Does the Minister agree that this is a vital opportunity for Mr Abbas to negotiate again for a two-state solution?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I agree that what we want to see and what is required—it has been a long-standing position, and we remain steadfast—is a negotiated two-state solution that works for Israel in terms of its security concerns, and provides for a sovereign Palestinian nation.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, I fear that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We might have got one or two more supplementary questions in had not some of the others been so long. I thank everyone who has taken part today. That concludes the Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions. Virtual Proceedings will resume at a convenient point after noon for a Private Notice Question on the impact of Covid-19 on higher education.
Virtual Proceeding suspended.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

The announcement was made in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, Virtual Proceedings of the House will now resume. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege and that what we say is available to the public both in Hansard and to those listening and watching. Members’ microphones will initially be set to mute and the broadcasting team will unmute them shortly before we reach their place in the speakers’ list. When Members have finished speaking, their microphone will again be set to mute.
The Virtual Proceedings on the Private Notice Question will now commence. I will call the Private Notice Question in the normal way, and supplementary questions will be asked in the order shown on the speakers’ list. Please ensure that questions and answers are short. A single question with a concise answer will ensure that we get through as many Members’ questions as possible. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to them asking a supplementary question, and returned to mute once their supplementary question has finished.

Higher Education
 - Private Notice Question

Lord Blunkett: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the announcement on 4 May of the support package for universities and students as a result of the impact of COVID-19, what steps they are taking to protect (1) the quality, and (2) the accessibility, of higher education.
The Question was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, all registered providers must comply with the Office for Students’ conditions for quality and access. We are protecting the interests of students by stabilising the admissions system, bringing forward £2.6 billion of forecast tuition fee income to help universities’ cash flow, and providing students with more support. This includes help for universities to reprioritise spending to increase student hardship funds, to support students to continue to access their university education.

Lord Blunkett: My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests. Will the Minister kindly confirm that the definition of the 5% uplift on student numbers is forecast and not any historic benchmark? Will she confirm—perhaps not today, but in writing—an urgent timeline for the publication of the work of the research sustainability task force in respect of the likely catastrophic loss of income from overseas students and the urgent need to underwrite research funding, should cross-subsidy be no longer available?

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, the precise figures to determine the 5% uplift on the cap will be provided at provider level, and the methodology for that will be published shortly. The task force is made up of members from the Department for Education, BEIS, the devolved Administrations and the sector, and will meet to ensure the long-term viability of the research capacity of UK universities.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, higher education is profoundly affected by loss of income from overseas students. This will compound the loss of research  income from Horizon 2020 and other EU participation programmes, which have long been a critical part of our research success and indeed our cultural richness. What steps are being taken to encourage overseas students to come to the UK and how much further funding can be supplied to replace the substantial money, if not the collaboration, which is desperately needed for our research programmes?

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, in relation to international students, the department is working with the Department for International Trade to amend the international education strategy. The clear message is that the UK is open for business and for international students to come at the start of the academic year, but we recognise that different arrangements may need to be made. Those arrangements are in train—for instance, with different visa situations—so that students can begin their courses remotely overseas. We are keenly aware and are doing all we can to support the sector at this difficult time.

Lord Duncan of Springbank: My Lords, I am concerned about the potential disparity in support across the United Kingdom. Can my noble friend the Minister outline the measures to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government to ensure equity of support across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as England? Can she confirm that the £100 million of public funding for research activities announced by my honourable friend the Science Minister will be available to each of the home nations?

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, as I have outlined, the Government’s resource task force is specifically including the devolved Administrations. The changes to student finance affect students in Northern Ireland and Wales as well. We are in close touch with colleagues in Scotland, particularly in relation to English students who will study there and Scottish students who will come to the UK.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I declare my interest as a recently appointed member and vice-chair of GB MET, a local FE college. The Government are allowing universities to charge students the full £9,250 annual tuition fee while our campuses remain closed—as long as there are “highest standards of online teaching”. Does the Minister accept that many courses are simply unsuitable for online learning? Students cannot access studios, laboratories, libraries and placements during the current pandemic. The market-driven higher education system has forced students to see themselves as consumers, and they are not getting what they have paid for. It is not fair on students nor on the university institutions.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, most universities have adopted online provision. The Office for Students has been very clear to the sector that the quality of provision that is being offered should be maintained during this period. If a student has any complaints about the quality of what they are being offered, they should deal with it first with their university—but, as the noble Lord will aware, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education can adjudicate on the quality of student provision at a university.

Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Snowdon Trust, which assists disabled students with the extra expenses attributable to their disability. What steps will the Government take to ensure that disabled students are not further disadvantaged as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic; for example, by exempting them from the student number controls?

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, the Office for Students has been very clear that the quality of provision for all students should be maintained. There has been particular advice in relation to disabled students and their access to online provision. A letter from the Minister to the sector has highlighted the need to make sure that, where online provision cannot meet the needs of students, they are able to access all the support that they need remotely, including the non-medical help that they are often entitled to. The Equality Act is still in force in relation to the provision of higher education.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: How will the Government’s bailout measures and future policies help universities move away from the wasteful commercial model, where they see themselves as competing businesses, towards a more co-operative model of communities of scholars working for the common good? The kind of waste that could be eliminated is, as the Augar report highlighted, the £500 per student that is spent on marketing. Does the noble Baroness agree that universities cannot afford such sums?

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The £700 million is the estimate of the Office for Students for the specific access of higher education to all the schemes that have been outlined. Noble Lords spent many days debating the Higher Education and Research Act, and the Office for Students is a modern regulator, encouraging greater innovation and putting student choice at the centre of our system.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: I call the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington. We will come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, if we have time.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that certain practices will have to change in lockdown? One of them is that anybody who needs an assessment of a disability can do that online as opposed to doing it the traditional way, face to face. I remind the House of my declared interests.

Baroness Berridge: The noble Lord is correct; where an assessment is needed for disability support allowance, it needs to be done remotely. We are seeing that in these difficult circumstances there are situations where the use of remote technology has proved to be advantageous, and it might end up being a change or an option in any current system.

Lord Baker of Dorking: May I congratulate the Government on increasing the number of extra graduates this year? The number amounts to about 34,000, and the Government will insist on certain courses  for 10,000. I suggest that they should insist only on courses for the entire number that are related to improving the British economy. We need more technically trained people: more doctors, dentists, midwives, nurses and medical workers. We also need more technicians, engineers and computer specialists who understand cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and virtual reality. We do not need more humanities students—they can learn from home virtually—but the physical presence of all those other students at a university will be needed in September this year.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, in addition to the forecast numbers and the 5% uplift, 10,000 places are reserved, and I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that half of them will be in the healthcare sector. Further details on the allocation of the 10,000 additional places will be released in due course.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: The measures are a welcome step for cash flow but do not avoid the projected fall in income of £2.5 billion and the cost to the economy of £6 billion and 60,000 jobs. What is the Government’s response to this assessment from the UCU/London Economics report?

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, the package that has been announced will stabilise the sector and give all the clarity that can be given at the moment. As I have outlined, the forecast is that the sector will be eligible for £700 million as regards loans and the job retention scheme. However, we are working with and keeping in close touch with the sector. The Office for Students has an individual contacting every provider so that we are in touch with their financial situation going forward.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, the time allowed for the Private Notice Question has elapsed. Virtual Proceedings will now adjourn until a convenient point after 2 pm for the debate in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York.
Virtual Proceeding suspended.

House of Lords: Allowances
 - Motion to Agree

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Moved by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
1. The Resolution of the House of 20 July 2010 (House of Lords Allowance) shall temporarily cease to have effect in respect of attendances after 20 April 2020.
2. Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, should be entitled to an allowance in respect of each day of attendance on or after 21 April 2020.
3. “Attendance” means attendance—
a) at a sitting of this House or a Committee of this House,
b) at a virtual proceeding of this House or a virtual meeting of a Committee of this House, or
c) on such other Parliamentary business as may be determined by the House of Lords Commission.
4. The amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance should be £162.
5. In respect of attendance at a physical sitting or virtual proceeding of this House only Members who speak during the sitting or the proceeding, or who are otherwise necessary to the proceedings, should be entitled to an allowance.
6. In respect of attendance at a Committee of this House, only Members of that Committee or Members authorised to attend a meeting of such a Committee by the Chair should be entitled to an allowance.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My Lords, both Houses have been operating under unprecedented circumstances over the last few weeks and I know I speak for the whole commission membership when I convey thanks to all those who have heeded government health advice and remained away from the House to take part wherever possible in remote proceedings.
Over recent weeks, many of your Lordships, myself included, have had to adapt to considerable technological changes, which have been challenging at times. Although there have been teething issues along the way, we can be both proud and grateful to all those involved who have supported and enabled us to continue to perform our roles as parliamentarians, be that communicating government policy or holding the Government to account.
However, these unprecedented circumstances have raised specific issues around allowances—a situation we are seeking to address through this Motion. The overwhelming majority of Members of your Lordships’ House are not paid a salary but instead are entitled to claim an allowance which recompenses noble Lords for the costs incurred and associated with physically attending the House to undertake parliamentary work. Now that we are working remotely and in the majority of cases not attending the House in person, the commission has agreed that the amount Members are able to claim needs to reflect this new, temporary situation.
Alongside a change in the rate of the daily allowance, the commission has also agreed that we should more precisely define participation in our proceedings. After careful consideration and lengthy discussions, the commission has proposed that the current allowance system be temporarily suspended and the maximum daily claimable rate be reduced from £323 per day to £162.
Eligibility for the temporary allowance will be based on direct contributions in the proceedings of the day, which will be reflected in the public record. This reduced rate applies to Members whether they are actively  participating online in a Virtual Proceeding or in the significantly reduced number of physical sittings that take place in this Chamber. Members participating directly in the important work of our Select Committees will also be eligible for the new temporary allowance at the same rate. Simply following proceedings online or signing up to a speakers’ list does not meet these eligibility criteria.
The commission agreed that the half-day flat rate of £162 was the most appropriate amount for the temporary allowance as it aligns with the amount available to those participating in parliamentary business away from Westminster under normal circumstances. Of course, the proposals before your Lordships’ House also retain the current position that a Member does not have to claim anything should they feel so inclined.
The Motion proposes that the temporary allowance arrangements be applied retrospectively from 21 April, when we returned from the Easter Recess and began our new way of working, so that Members are able to claim for remote participation from that date. These changes to our allowance system will of course be kept under constant review.
I am aware that there are very different views across the House and across all Benches about the detail of these proposals. No commission member took these decisions lightly. However, at a time when millions of people across the country are having to adapt to working remotely and are facing considerable financial challenges of their own, it is right that we have adapted our financial arrangements and our burden on the taxpayer to reflect the current working environment we face. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Lord Alderdice: Moved by Lord Alderdice
At end to insert—
“7. The House of Lords Commission must determine whether the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 either
(a) should continue to be in effect, or
(b) should be replaced with an alternative entitlement to allowances,
and in either case must bring a resolution to that effect before this House on, or before, 30 June 2020.”

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, as a former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and now as a Deputy to the Lord Speaker, I tend to approach these issues not just from a party point of view but from an institutional point of view, trying to understand the impact of any decisions that might be made on the institutions that we are privileged to be able to serve.
Listening to a number of noble Lords across the House, it is clear to me that there is an increasing loss of trust that the House is being treated properly. Yesterday’s Private Notice Question, asked by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and the supplementary questions to it gave one example. However, the issue goes back much further than the Covid-19  outbreak—to, for example, suggestions that during restoration and renewal the House of Lords should be shuffled off to York, not in order to pay respect to the people in the north of England but to marginalise the influence of the House.
Recent briefings from 10 Downing Street about cutting out anyone over the age of 65 and moving to electing Peers are not thoughtful, creative comments but simply destructive threats whose purpose is to shut down debate in this place. Indeed, that seems to be the Government’s strategy. Having a very large majority in the House of Commons, it is only in your Lordships’ House that real, meaningful dissent is possible. Holding the Government to account is an essential role of Parliament, and that requires the possibility of not just asking questions of government but, from time to time, saying to government, “No, you’ve got it wrong.” In the case of this Government’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, it is clear that there have been misjudgments and mistakes, some very serious.
I hear Ministers trying to gloss over such questions by saying that there will be time to address them later. That is true, but the time to learn from the mishandling is not just afterwards in the preparation for the next global pandemic, which we all hope will be as far away as the last one a century ago; no, we need to learn lessons as quickly as possible now to save lives. The Government need to hear the reality of what is going on in the health and care sector and in society as a whole.
In such national crises, the initial posture of society is of course to rally round the Government in the hope of finding clear leadership. However, when things do not go well and we find that the level of deaths in our country is one of the worst and that government promises are misleading or unfulfilled, trust, very properly, gives way to criticism. If that criticism is not heard and heeded—for example, in your Lordships’ House—accountability is not fulfilled. If it is heard and heeded, accountability is fulfilled, but, if not, the criticism gives way to hostility and a breakdown of trust and working relationships.
One thing that emerged when I tabled this amendment was that it was not possible for the Opposition effectively to oppose the Government’s position. We are not able to vote in our virtual sittings, although the suggestion that this is not technically possible is, frankly, misleading. As we in the Liberal Democrat group have found, it is perfectly possible to vote using the reaction feature in the Zoom program if one wants votes to take place.
It was also made clear to me that the House authorities did not want votes to take place in the Chamber, the Lobbies or the Royal Gallery, despite arrangements having been made some time ago, because of anxieties about the health of clerking staff. As a doctor and a psychiatrist, I am of course very alert to such issues, but the result is that it is not possible for this House to vote on any issue or to be clear whether the Government’s position has the support of the House. We are told that it will be at least four or five weeks before that capacity is technically available to us in the virtual sittings.
I am very sceptical. It seems that there is an attempt by the Government’s strategist and senior advisor to ensure that your Lordships’ House is muzzled and sidelined during this time of national crisis, and, as  populist and authoritarian leaders around the world are doing, to use this crisis to make permanent changes in favour of an untrammelled Executive. That is why I propose that by the end of June the House of Lords Commission should be required to put forward any proposals that it has, whether to continue the arrangements currently being pushed through or to have a return to more reasonable arrangements for the work of the House.
The noble Baroness and her colleagues may feel that what is being proposed is reasonable and appropriate—although to suggest to people in the world at large that working online is not real work at all is hardly appropriate—but if that is the case, the rest of your Lordships’ House would expect that those who make the decision should change their practices and reduce their allowances voluntarily to reduce their substantial emoluments as an indication of some measure of solidarity. After all, we have had too many examples already of leading figures making rules that apply to other people, but not observing them themselves in respect of the Covid-19 crisis.
This House has changed enormously since I came here almost a quarter of a century ago. Those journalists who do not trouble to read our Hansard or come down the Corridor to familiarise themselves with the House as it now is will not be familiar with the fact that there is now a much wider range of age, gender, ethnic and religious diversity, and, particularly, income. The House authorities ought also to appreciate that those who come from well beyond London and the south-east have particular needs if they are to properly represent the concerns of those in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England.
I do not agree with the terms of the Motion brought forward by the Leader of the House, but I have no real way of voting against it. I know from my experience in Northern Ireland that when people find that they cannot express their concerns by voting for change, it leads to a breakdown in trust and relationships, without which no institution or society can work harmoniously. That is why I appeal to her to find a way to take on board my request, which does not take away from the content of the Motion but simply requires it to be reviewed when one could reasonably expect that voting would be possible in a virtual sitting. There are various ways she could do this, and I hope that she will find a way.
I believe that the amendment would have the overwhelming support of the House if it could vote and show it. It is the welfare of the future of the House, not just now but in the long term, that is at stake. I beg to move.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I think that everybody on the commission and a large majority of your Lordships’ House accepts that during these unprecedented times and with us moving temporarily to a virtual House, it was right that the current allowance system should be changed and that Members should receive a reduced amount. There was disagreement on the commission about how much that reduction might be. I argued for a somewhat larger amount; others argued for a much lower figure. The figure in today’s Motion reflects what might be thought of as the centre of gravity of opinion on the commission.
As I said, I wholly accept that some reduction was appropriate. I declare an interest in that I am a recipient of allowances. However, I should point out for clarity that this proposal will, given the constraints on people speaking and the reduction in Select Committee sittings, result in reduction in allowances received by individual Members of between three-quarters and seven-eighths of what people might reasonably otherwise have expected to receive. This is particularly hard on people from Scotland, Wales and the English regions who have unbreakable rental contracts on flats in London. It must, therefore, be seen very much as a temporary expedient.
Any discussion on allowances must be framed against the question: what is the point of your Lordships’ House? Unless we are clear about that we cannot have any clarity about what value to ascribe to it.
Like all institutions, we have a temptation to exaggerate our own importance, but if Parliament ever had a crucial role to play, then it is at this moment in our national history when we are facing a combination of an immediate crisis and, looking forward, a clear need to reassess the nature of our economy and how to better run society for the benefit of all its members. Parliament is the pre-eminent forum for undertaking that role, and your Lordships’ House is an integral part of Parliament.
That helps to explain the frustration of many of my colleagues and many others across the House about the pace at which we have adopted new proceedings, why they believe that we should not be departing from the long-held principle that any Peer who wishes to speak in a debate should be able to do so, why they want to move to electronic voting without delay, and why they support moves to a virtual House in the short term but are keen to move to a hybrid House, as the Commons already have, as soon as possible. On that latter point, they do so because their experience of questioning Ministers and taking part in debates remotely is that it is a pale imitation of the real thing. There is no possibility of really putting Ministers under pressure in the sterilised environment of the virtual world. I believe that even Cicero would have struggled to make a significant impact via the medium of Zoom.
Their frustrations are exacerbated by what they see as a concerted attempt by the Leader and the Government to denigrate the work of this House. We are used to the Government threatening the Lords with some kind of draconian retribution when they think we might kick up rough, but the Sunday Times article hit a new low. Despite the assertion yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord True, that the proposal that all of us over the age of 65 are too clapped out to do any real work did not represent government policy—I am sure that the newly ennobled noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, will be particularly grateful for that—the article was an attempt to reduce the standing of your Lordships’ House as a corporate body in the eyes of the electorate. It was a disgrace, and I hope the noble Baroness the Leader will take this opportunity to repudiate not just the proposals in it but also its tone.
Having said that, I was pleased to see that the Government are allegedly considering replacing the current House with an elected Chamber, a proposition that has of course been supported in the Lobbies in the past by Members of the Cabinet, including Michael Gove. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us the state of government thinking on that proposal.
If your Lordships’ House is to continue, either with its broadly current membership or on any other basis, the way in which we make it possible for people of all backgrounds and from all parts of the country to play a full part needs to be uppermost in our mind. We are not a Chamber just of the affluent part-time retirees for whom membership comes with a sense of noblesse oblige. The previous Labour Government introduced great strides in making this House more diverse and more reflective of the country as a whole, and we strongly supported that. We must not allow the current crisis to turn the clock back.
That brings us back to allowances. The Government have accepted that the scheme before the House today is temporary, but “temporary” is an extremely slippery word and, indeed, a slippery concept. I argued at the commission that we should have either a review or a sunset clause on today’s proposals by the end of June, by which stage hopefully we will have a hybrid House in operation. If they are not reviewed at that point, people who live at some distance from Westminster and who have to pay for accommodation here will be spending all or more of their allowances on accommodation, and some simply will not be able to afford to do it. They will therefore not be able to participate fully in the work of the House. I am sure no one believes that having a Londoncentric House is desirable, but that will be the consequence if the proposal before us today is anything more than a temporary expedient.
There is a very strong argument for having a longer-term external review of the allowances system, and I would support that, but in approving the Motion today the House must provide a mechanism for the longer term. I therefore support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, and I look forward to reverting to a fully functioning House as quickly as health considerations allow.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, there are two issues here: allowances and the wider issue of the conduct of the House during the lockdown, as was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Newby.
The Leader of the House concentrated her remarks on allowances. On that specific issue, I agree with the commission’s proposal for the reasons that the Leader gave. In a time of great crisis when people are making great sacrifices, it is absolutely right that we follow suit. The right compromise on this is a halved allowance, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness. That should continue for as long as we are meeting virtually because the actual costs that most noble Lords—I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that it is not true of all noble Lords—need to meet are lower.
However, I agree entirely with the thrust of the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Alderdice, about the conduct of the House in lockdown, including that our arrangements should be considered emergency  arrangements—because they are, or at least I hope that they are, unless the Government make further changes—to deal with an emergency situation. I say this directly to the Leader: the great concern among many Members is that the emergency changes we are all willingly making to meet the exigencies of this crisis may become permanent. As all of us who have dealt with these situations in other contexts know, precedent always becomes the justification for further changes, particularly in dealing with the proceedings of Parliament. Some key aspects of the arrangements for the House in lockdown are causing acute concern; the noble Lords who just spoke were absolutely right to raise them.
Very significant departures from established practice have been taking place. From time immemorial, it has been a principle that noble Lords who wish to participate in our debates can do so. For the first time, as far as I am aware, in the eight centuries of the history of the House of Lords, under changes that are not even the subject of specific resolutions of the House but are the consequence of going online, noble Lords are being told that they cannot participate in the proceedings of the House. The Motion in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, which we will debate this afternoon, goes to the heart of the crisis facing the country: the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the poor and disadvantaged. Many noble Lords have been told that they cannot participate in this debate because of the arbitrary three-hour time limit that has been imposed and because of the exigencies of the Virtual Proceedings.
The answer is obvious: the proceedings should be longer. There is no reason why we should sit for only three hours. We could sit for five hours. We are sitting only on a limited number of days anyway. Many of us think that we should sit for longer. The noble Baroness can correct me but my understanding is that the Government have been the motive force in restricting our sittings and not holding more debates or longer ones. It is absolutely within our control to fix this.
The second issue is that of a wholly virtual House. It is obvious now to anybody who considers what has happened that the Procedure Committee and the House of Lords Commission made a major error in the arrangements that they put in place for our proceedings after 21 April. They should have moved immediately to a hybrid House, as the House of Commons did. Indeed, it has made a great success of it. I just came into your Lordships’ House from watching Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister was doing a perfectly good job of answering questions and dealing with points made by both the leader of the Opposition in the House and MPs joining via Zoom. That has kept the House of Commons at the centre of the public debate; it has not become invisible. We went wholly virtual, which was a huge mistake —the Procedure Committee needs to get a grip on this when it meets next Monday—and which made us wholly invisible. For the first week of our Sitting, proceedings were not even broadcast, which is a major departure from established parliamentary practice. They are now being broadcast but, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly said, they are not getting a fraction of the attention they get when they take place in this Chamber.
We need to speak bluntly at this point. The Procedure Committee has been very seriously remiss in meeting its duties to the House and to the public, and I hope that it will get a grip and that the Senior Deputy Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, will fulfil his duties to the House as a whole and not simply implement the wishes of the Government regarding the arrangements for the lockdown.
I hope also that three issues can be addressed immediately. The first is the move towards a hybrid House, so that we can fulfil our duties to the public and do not become invisible. The second is that noble Lords who wish to speak in debates can continue to do so, because that is absolutely central to the performance of their parliamentary duties. If that means longer debates, we should have longer debates—we are here to serve the public, not to serve ourselves. The third aspect, which is vital, is the proceedings on legislation. Your Lordships’ House is a legislature. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that we are tempted to exaggerate our importance, but we should not underplay in any way our importance as a legislature. We make the law and there is no more important function in the country than making the law.
Under the arrangements that we are going to debate in a moment, the rights of noble Lords to participate in the Committee stages of Bills and to fulfil their constitutional functions are being severely circumscribed, and for no good reason. If we had a hybrid House, people would be able to participate in Committee proceedings as normal. We have an absolutely unprecedented situation whereby noble Lords who want to engage in the Committee stages of Bills next week have to give advance notice. This has never happened in the history of the House of Lords: that for Members to participate in consideration of a Bill, they have to give advance notice. The whole point of debate is that there is give and take and people come in as they see how debates continue. I have tabled an amendment that would ensure the automatic recommittal of Bills which have been considered only virtually in Committee, so amendments could be moved thereafter.
We have grave responsibilities to the public during this crisis: to debate the challenges facing the country and to bring to Ministers’ attention the severe tribulations being suffered by millions of people up and down the country. We can do that only if we can make our voices heard, and if we can sit properly. I do not believe that the Procedure Committee has enabled us to do that, so it needs to take immediate radical, remedial action before our constitutional duties are severely undermined.

Lord Shinkwin: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and a pleasant novelty to agree with every word that he has said. I speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
When I entered your Lordships’ House four and a half years ago, I spoke of the deep sense of privilege. But I was also very aware that that was underscored by the knowledge that I am not in any way, shape or form a member of a privileged elite. My fear is that the decision we are discussing today perpetuates the dangerous myth that that is all the House of Lords is about, visible or invisible: that people assume that we are simply part—that we are the epicentre—of the privileged elite.
I do not believe that is true. I know from my own situation and the situation of other Members that they rely on the income that the allowances bring to live in the real world. I joined this House in the knowledge that I would take a drop in my income. I did so in good faith, believing that I would receive an income in the service of my country, but that faith has been sorely tested by the announcement on allowances because the decision takes no account of the fact that some Members are not wealthy and have a huge mortgage, as I do, that some Members have a ministerial pension and that some Members are nowhere near retirement age.
This decision hangs those of us who live in that part of the real world out to dry. This is not a lifestyle issue; it is a question of livelihood. How on earth am I meant to live without the income that the allowances give? Has anyone explained that to the media? Has my noble friend, for whom I have great respect, fought for my interest? How many members of the House of Lords Commission have a mortgage and how many are not in receipt of a pension? As the Lord Privy Seal rightly said, no Member has to claim any allowance, but some Members need to do so.
Your Lordships’ House needs to reassert itself. I urge the Lord Privy Seal to withdraw this Motion until the House has an opportunity to debate it fully or, if she cannot do that, at the very least to accept the amendment so skilfully advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: I declare an interest as someone who receives and claims allowances. I am, I think, the only representative today of the usual channels, and I would like to make a few remarks about how this system will work. No one in their right mind wants to debate allowances—that is reflected in the attendance today—and nobody really wants to make arguments on the subject. I accept that the focus of our work must be on the crisis, how the country is affected health-wise and how we are to come through it job-wise. However, there must be an understanding in the House that many of us accept that there has to be some form of short-term response to protect the reputation of the House, but we should not support it if we think it will undermine our work, effectiveness and reputation in the longer term.
In the short term, as my colleague and noble friend Lord Newby pointed out, the halving of the allowances that we are talking about is not the case. It is more like a quartering. Few people will be able to make more than one intervention a week. If the commission also put out a press release emphasising the benefits of cost-savings, which I accept there were, it raises fears that this is a permanent solution and it will be politically difficult if we then have to put the costs up again.
Turning to my role in the usual channels, I shall tell the House a little about the difficulties of what will happen in the short term and why this must be a short-term solution. Too many Peers will have to intervene in Questions and debates and, more importantly, good people will stand aside to allow others who need the financial support to do so. They will not speak  or ask questions when we most need them to do so.  The Chief Whips—I am sorry to use this analogy, but 50 years ago I spent time in the London docks—are making me like a shop steward in the casual system who will determine who speaks, who deals with the rationing of questions and, effectively, who gets their income. I do not want that role, and nor should the House want the Whips to have that role.
In the short term, a number of Peers have contractual obligations with their rents. These are the people really committed to this place and who therefore do really good work; they provide for themselves to do that and take out contractual rental commitments. With this level of allowances—I remind everybody that the allowances are for expenses—I think most people who have those contractual arrangements, certainly those in my group, will not be able to meet them, probably through the summer, by the looks of things.
Thirdly, one in 10 of my group is supported by an intern or a member of staff paid for by my group. That means that 10 people’s jobs are uncertain at the moment, should this scheme go ahead in the long term. All those people contribute behind the scenes to the work of this House. We do not see them; they support us. They will face a lot of uncertainty and the Peers will have to make up their minds whether to give up their contractual obligations to those people. So do not think that it is just us who will be hit by this; there are also the staff who support us. That is on top of all the people paid for by the various state funds, do not let us forget that.
What I am really saying to the House is that the commission needs to show leadership—I would have done. I think I behaved in this way in any organisation that I ran as a manager: if I cut people’s wages or made people redundant, I cut my wages. I did not take a wage increase or a bonus. That should flow across our organisation, if we are to provide leadership in the short term.
This scheme cannot last in the medium term; it is a short-term response. I accept that, so let us make it so. Therefore, in the short term—we do not want to wait until 29 June to do this; we need to start now—we need to define what work in the House means, because it does not mean just intervening in the Chamber, so that we can introduce a new revised scheme when we have the hybrid Parliament working in June and onwards. It is sadly not acceptable that we should settle our own allowances and money—the Commons has come to realise this—so we need an independent review, which will take a bit longer. That is why we need a short-term solution after this scheme is approved today. We need something longer-term, to be looked at independently and outside.
That is the advice I give this House. Obviously, we accept that we have to do something in the short term, but it would be very unfair on the effectiveness of this House and its Members if this is seen as anything other than a short-term, temporary scheme.

Baroness Northover: I, too, am speaking in favour of my noble friend Lord Alderdice’s amendment. Having come through the virus, I am able to be here and am glad to have the opportunity. Many of my colleagues, of course, cannot be here.
The United Kingdom is going through an extraordinary crisis and the Government have much that they must tackle. This is a global crisis with huge implications. As the noble Baroness will know, over 200 Members of the House that she leads have written to the Lord Speaker, making the point that it is our duty as Members of the House of Lords both to help the Government and hold them to account. Given the gravity of this crisis, we need urgently at least to return to our normal sitting pattern. We rightly allowed the Commons to be prioritised in setting up hybrid procedures. Now that it has been done, the same must urgently happen here. As the letter says, the implications of the pandemic are huge. There are issues of health and safety, economic damage, civil liberties and human rights, and many aspects of each. There is so much to cover. Just yesterday, the Lords examined the financial stability report, which had passed unseen by the Commons because it had not even been published when they waved it through.
Internationally, some Governments and others seem to be taking advantage of the cover of coronavirus. It is our responsibility to make sure that a spotlight is shone there too, given that the United Kingdom aspires to global leadership and is a member of the UN Security Council. Therefore, there is more for us to do, not less, so all effort must be put into the Lords returning as the second and scrutinising part of Parliament, and impediment must not be placed in the way of that. However, it has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and my noble friends Lord Stoneham, Lord Newby and Lord Alderdice have made plain.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said about a ministerial pension. I was an unpaid Minister through most of the coalition. The Government Chief Whip said at the time that none of us would lose out. Clearly, we need a sunset clause for this proposal, which assumes that we will be working less, not more. If this proposal is to go through, clearly the salaried members of the commission must show leadership by voluntarily taking a pay cut, not to 80% but along the lines that will result from this proposal. The sooner we at least move back to our usual days and hours in this crisis, the better.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, it is quite clear from the comments we have heard already that we indeed live in extraordinary times for our country. Indeed, I do not recall ever speaking to such an empty Chamber. That is not because I am a brilliant speaker whom everyone floods in to listen to; it is because Members take their responsibilities seriously and are in the Chamber to take part in the work that we do.
On the very day it was announced that the number of deaths in the UK from coronavirus is now the highest in Europe, we also got more information on the alarming number of deaths in social care situations. It is very sobering for us to be here today talking about the issues before us. What is happening across the world brings enormous responsibilities not only for the Government but for the opposition parties. Parliament also has responsibilities—to ensure that those on the front line have the equipment, the protection and the support that they need, and that those trying to manage  their lives through this crisis and beyond know that they have all the support and information which government and society should provide for them.
The Government decide the Order of Business. I am sorry that the first item up today was allowances. It has been reflected in the speeches that we have heard. Not one person has talked about the allowances without talking about how the House operates. My noble friend Lord Adonis has some amendments on this later, but he touched on it when he spoke earlier. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, when moving his Motion, spoke about how the House operates and our responsibilities. I would prefer the allowances Motion to be much further down the agenda. I hope that the Minister can take that back and discuss it with the usual channels. It was not the most important item before us today. Having said that, it is important, and has caused a lot of discussion.
I will speak briefly on some of the other issues, but on the issue of allowances the Minister’s comments about the difficulties in reaching this compromise Motion before us reflect the inadequacies of the current system of allowances that we have heard about from others. Those deficiencies cannot be corrected in a Motion during a crisis. The existing system and the new system being proposed also reflect the perception of Parliament. Both are predicated on being physically or virtually in the Chamber, and now we have the added criterion, which the Minister supports, that at Oral Questions, even if someone is on the list to speak, they have to be engaged in listening at least 30 minutes beforehand. If somebody else speaks for too long and goes over—and I do not want to curtail Ministers from giving complete answers to questions—and do not get in, that is no longer deemed a participation, even though they are present in the virtual chamber.
The problem with that is that it perpetuates the myth that the only work of value that parliamentarians do is that which occurs in the Chamber, whether virtual or physical. I had this discussion when I was a Member of the other place. It was always an issue for constituents. They would turn on the TV and see whether you were present in the Chamber, and if you were not there they would wonder what you were doing. As parliamentarians from both Houses, we have to say what our role is, and it is not predicated on just a few words of a speech in the Chamber.
The Minister and I, through our responsibilities, which take far longer to fulfil virtually than they do when we are physically in the building, are paid representatives of this House. That recognises the other work that we do outside the Chamber. But there is a difficulty. She has a number of government Ministers who are unpaid. They are working very hard. I know that, because members of my own Front Bench are regularly in meetings and conversations leading up to legislation about the current situation and the future business of the House. Most of the work undertaken by Ministers on the Front Bench is paid—six are not—but none of the Front Bench in my party, the Official Opposition, are paid. For all those meetings and all the work that they do, they are not recognised in any way at all. There is no recognition, including  financial recognition, unless they ask a question or speak in a debate. That is the point which other noble Lords have made about the role of our work.
On the Minister’s point about noble Lords not having to claim anything, we all know that is the case, and there are a few who may choose not to do so. But we ought to be clear that the days when independent means allowed someone to have a seat in Parliament without any payment—lots of millionaires were able to work as often as they liked without any payment at all—have long gone. That no longer reflects what the House of Lords, the second Chamber of our Parliament, does. I hope that she will reflect on that. We know that is still the situation for some, but I would not make a thing of it, given that it applies to so few Members of your Lordships’ House.
There have been difficulties in reaching this temporary position, partly because of the compromises involved, and partly because it does not recognise anything other than saying a few words or making a speech in a virtual or physical Chamber.
I want to ask the Minister a couple of things. First, she will know that as the Leader of this House she bears an enormous responsibility for its reputation. It would be helpful if she could recognise and thank those who, during this time, have put an awful lot of effort into holding the Government to account, not for party political points but because the Government have to get this right. We cannot go through this crisis without that natural role of scrutiny and challenge to get the best possible decision-making in the interests of people in this country, who are suffering through a terrible ordeal. That role of scrutiny and challenge is vital in normal times; it is even more so in times of crisis.
I hope that she will also be able to consider and reflect upon some of the other points that have been raised. As Leader of the Opposition, and considering her role as Leader of the House, I would be interested to know what discussions she has had in government about the role of your Lordships’ House. There was an awful story in the Sunday Times, briefed by somebody in the Government. The noble Lord, Lord True, was absolutely right to say what nonsense it was, but somebody in government was talking to a newspaper in those terms, and that is inappropriate.
I will say something about online proceedings now rather than come back when the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, moves his Motions, should he choose to do so. Obviously, Virtual Proceedings are inadequate; they will never be as good as the real thing. All of  us want to get back to the point where we can fulfil  our responsibilities in the way we want to fulfil  them. The whole House wants that, and I hope the Government want that too. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, raised a number of issues. Those are the kinds of issues—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, as I say this—which the usual channels are grappling with daily. The allowances add another complication, but ensuring as much proper scrutiny of the Government as possible and ensuring that Members can contribute and use their expertise is an ongoing challenge and struggle.
We want to go back to normal business as soon as it is safe for this House—that includes all the staff of this House, including cleaners, caterers, doorkeepers and clerks of the House, as well as noble Lords—to do so. We may have to do that in stages, but we have to recognise that technology can take us only so far.
I hope the noble Baroness can confirm that, in Committee, the proceedings will not be as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, fears; that there will be far more flexibility and latitude to ensure that noble Lords are not excluded; and that the first day in Committee should allow for Second Reading speeches, so that those broad, general points can be put on the record as well.
There is a lot more work to do. The Motion before us is a difficult one. It has to be accepted at this stage but, as has been said, it needs to be under constant review.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I thank all noble Lords for their comments. I am going to restrict my comments on this Motion to allowances, because we will come on to some broader points that noble Lords raised on other issues in debating the next Motion. However, I am very happy to reiterate the words of my noble friend Lord True yesterday: there is absolutely no basis to the Sunday Times story. It is not government policy and nothing that I recognise, and I am very sorry for the hurt and upset it has caused in your Lordships’ House. I put on record again that it is not true.
Regarding the number of contributions, this debate has made clear the difficult decisions and balances that the commission had to strike in coming up with these proposals. I completely recognise, as we all do, the very real-life consequences once decisions have been made. That is why, as I said in my opening remarks, the allowance will be under constant review. We are in a moving picture and in unprecedented times, as I think everybody recognises. We are doing our best to move as and when we can to ensure that we take all this into account.
The voting Lobbies have been set up, but I very much hope that the noble Lord will not feel the need to use them today. I reiterate that this is under constant review. It is temporary, along with all the proceedings that we are undertaking. However, despite all the issues raised by noble Lords, and the restrictions we are dealing with in the Virtual Proceedings, I believe that we are able to do our job in very difficult circumstances. We are all very grateful to all those supporting us in being able to do so, notwithstanding the very real impact this is having on so many people’s lives.

Lord Newby: The noble Baroness has not really addressed the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Alderdice. Can she confirm whether she personally, and on behalf of the Government, believes that there should be a review? If so, when does she believe that should happen by? If she does not think so, on what basis does she think we can continue with what everybody accepts is an unacceptable, temporary situation, without any sense of when it might come to an end?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As the noble Lord is aware, since he is on the commission, this is not a government decision but a decision of the commission,  on whose behalf I am speaking. The Motion makes it clear that it is a temporary arrangement. As noble Lords know, I have said that it is under constant review. We can discuss with the Lord Speaker what that reviewing may look like, but it is not my decision alone as I am part of the commission.
We will have to see when and how we start to move. We are anticipating new guidance over the weekend on what restrictions will be happening. I am sure that all of us in the House will look at how to implement them. We all want to return as a House, as everyone has stated, but we have to stick to government guidelines and ensure that we have a safe working environment for Peers and staff. We have put Virtual Proceedings in place and are trying to roll them out. We are trying to increase the amount of business being done in Virtual Proceedings, which we will obviously discuss on the next Motion as we look to take more legislative stages online.
This is a constantly moving issue. I can assure noble Lords that—whether they know it or not—my staff and team, through the usual channels and with all the other leaders, are working constantly to ensure that we are doing our best to allow noble Lords the opportunities to address the issues that they want to.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I want to press the noble Baroness further, because I asked about her role as the Lord Privy Seal. I appreciate that she speaks as a member of the commission, but she is a member of it as the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of this House. What discussions has she had with the Government? In her role as Lord Privy Seal—a position that I think Thomas Cromwell held as well—it would be nice to know that she had been discussing the role of this House with the Government.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Yes, I am very happy to say so. One of the only other items on an agenda largely about coronavirus, in Cabinet and elsewhere, is that of parliamentary business. I am therefore able to give regular updates on the work of the Lords. I have been discussing with my Commons colleagues the work they are doing and how we can roll that out, and I am of course raising House of Lords’ issues on a regular basis within government; that is my job and that is what I do.

Baroness Northover: Will the noble Baroness show the leadership that one would expect of the Leader of the House and halve her salary also?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I am not going to make a commitment to do that now, but I will certainly reflect on it.

Lord Adonis: I fully accept the Leader’s commitment to these arrangements being temporary, but the best guarantee that the House can have of that is a sunset clause. Why will the Government not agree to that?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As I have said, these issues are under constant review. We are looking at them all the time, but a sunset clause sets an arbitrary date. These are temporary measures and we are looking  to develop things. Lots of ideas have been mentioned today about how we may wish to move forward, and we are committed to that. I think that that negates the need for specific dates.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: I do not think the noble Baroness answered the question that I raised. In showing leadership, she must go back to the commission this week, or next week—whenever it is due to meet—to start some of the work that will be required when this scheme ends. It is not good enough to wait until the end of June. We have work to do to define what business in the House means. Is she prepared to go back to the commission and recommend that that work should start straightaway?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I am sure that all members of the commission—a number of whom are here today—including me, will take that on board. We meet regularly, and I am sure that such discussions will happen. The noble Lord is absolutely right: as this develops, there needs to be thinking on allowances, our proceedings and a move to a hybrid House. We will need to have regular conversations to make sure that we can come up with solutions that work for Members and for the business of this House.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this debate—a slightly longer one than perhaps we might have expected, but that shows the strength of concern and feeling. I confess to a degree of disappointment. I do not think that the noble Baroness, or the Government in general, quite understand the import of what was being said. I focused more on the institutional than the individual consequences, which other noble Lords spoke to— I shall not name everyone who participated.
As she finished, the noble Baroness spoke about the fact that we are expecting announcements at the weekend on what will happen, and of course we look forward to that. But it is another example of the same problem. Her right honourable friend the Prime Minister chose not to do it in the House of Commons but to do it on a Sunday evening, when he would be the focus. The Speaker in another place has made it clear that that is not proper parliamentary process or procedure. It is crucial that these matters are brought back to Parliament and that Parliament is given its place.
The noble Baroness could have, without accepting the amendment, given an undertaking to fulfil its requirements on her own word, and I would have accepted that. I think that we will all have to go away and reflect on the consequences. I hope that she and her colleagues will realise that they have now created a situation where trust has got to be built, rather than depended upon, because some of it has simply evaporated. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, as is the proper process in your Lordships’ House. I do so not because I agree with the Motion, but because it is what we have to do.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.

Business of the House (Virtual Proceedings relating to the Committee stage of public bills and to Messages and First Readings)
 - Motion to Agree

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Moved by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That, further to the resolution of the House of 21 April, until further Order—
1. Committee stages of public bills may take place in Virtual Committee.
2. Such Proceedings shall follow, so far as practical, procedure in Grand Committee as modified by any guidance issued by the Procedure Committee.
3. A Virtual Committee is empowered to amend a bill, stand part its Clauses and Schedules, agree its Title and report it to the House.
4. No amendments may be tabled after the deadline prescribed by the Procedure Committee for consideration in Virtual Committee.
5. For the purposes of Standing Order 47(2) (Commitment of Bills) any motion to discharge an order of commitment is to be moved at a convenient point in physical proceedings, and Virtual Committee may be cancelled without motion if no amendments have been set down before the deadline for production of the Marshalled List.
6. Notwithstanding Standing Order 41(2) and (3), messages between the Houses may be sent and received, and a bill sent from the Commons may be read a first time, irrespective of the sitting of the House.
7. The provisions of this Order shall be applied in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the Procedure Committee from time to time, which may vary the provisions of the Companion to the Standing Orders insofar as they apply to Virtual Proceedings.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My Lords, from next Wednesday we will begin taking the Committee stages of public Bills virtually. These virtual Committees will constitute the Committee stages of these Bills in the same way a Grand Committee would in normal times and will be able to take decisions in the same way. I make it clear from the outset that while virtual Committee sittings will be time-limited, Committee stages will not: we do not time-limit the consideration of primary legislation and will not start now. More time will be found for any virtual Committees that take longer than expected, following discussions between the usual channels. This is the same process that has previously been followed when Bills are taken in the Chamber or the Moses Room.
Last Thursday, the Procedure Committee agreed the new temporary virtual procedures and has subsequently issued detailed guidance on how Committee stages will work. The guidance, including this Motion, was issued on Monday. I urge all noble Lords to familiarise themselves with the guidance. Notice of the first virtual Committee, due to take place next Wednesday, was given via last  week’s Forthcoming Business. Subject to the overall cap I shall now set out, any Member of the House may take part in a virtual Committee. However, as with all our business at the moment, Members will need to sign up in advance to take part, and only those who do so will be able to participate in proceedings. Those taking part will also be asked to indicate in advance which amendment or groups of amendments they wish to speak to, in order for the digital service to ensure that Peers can be part of the broadcast proceedings. Those Members who table or add their names to amendments will be signed up automatically.
The deadline for tabling amendments for virtual Committees will be one day earlier than normal: 5 pm three working days before a virtual Committee is due to take place, or 4 pm if that day is a Friday or in recess. It will not be possible to table amendments once the deadline has passed, so that groupings can be agreed and Members signed up to participate in good time. Since the House returned on 21 April, we have steadily increased the amount and type of business we take virtually. Our Virtual Proceedings have become smoother as we have become used to them and they are now being broadcast to the public in the same way our physical proceedings are. It is necessary for Members to sign up in advance of Virtual Proceedings, so that the digital service and broadcasting team know which Members are taking part and can support them properly, as I am sure all noble Lords who have taken part in the proceedings so far have seen as they get ready to take part. Noble Lords who are not able to take part are, of course, able to view the proceedings, and the Procedure Committee, not the Government, has set the deadlines for signing up, as is right and proper.
I know that questions were raised in the previous discussion about time limits and caps on the numbers of Members who can participate. These are not arbitrary rules; there are reasons linked to the administrative and broadcast capabilities of the House. The House authorities, the digital service and the broadcast team are already working at maximum capacity. Staff across the House are working long hours, working in reduced teams so they can do their jobs while respecting social distancing, and travelling on public transport to get to the House to allow us to participate virtually. They are here. I am sure noble Lords all appreciate the huge effort they are putting in on our behalf, but we have to be mindful of the demands we put on them and make sure they are giving them the space and ability to do their jobs to the best of their ability, which is absolutely what they are doing. I place on record again my thanks to all those who have worked so hard, and continue to do so, to support us. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Lord Adonis: Moved by Lord Adonis
To insert at the end:
“8. All bills considered in a Virtual Committee shall be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration in the Chamber.
9. This Order shall expire on 30 June 2020, or earlier if the House shall so order.”

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the first part of the amendment provides that:
“All bills considered in a Virtual Committee shall be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration in the Chamber.”
It may be convenient for the House if I speak to the second part of the amendment too, which is that this order—the arrangements that the Leader has just proposed for virtual Committees—
“shall expire on 30 June 2020, or earlier if the House shall so order.”
First, I echo every word the Leader said about the staff of the House. We pay tribute to them and recognise the great sacrifices they have been making and the intense pressure they have been working under. We fully accept that—in so far as Virtual Proceedings need to take place, which is the key proviso in this respect—special arrangements need to be put in place. I in no way question what the Leader said in that regard. The point that goes to the heart of the matter on Committee stages—and the reason Committee stages are so important—is that this is the House’s role in making the law, which is the most important function we undertake on behalf of the people.
The key issue is how far we need to consider Bills in these virtual Committee stages anyway. We are in a crisis. The overwhelming object of our public duties should be focusing on resolving the crisis. Looking at the legislation it is proposed that we take in Committee next week, it is not clear to me why any of this needs to be considered until the crisis is over. We are considering this legislation at the Government’s behest. The Government are imposing these requirements on the House, not the House itself.
The House’s duty is this. If the Government believe that legislation needs to be considered during the crisis—it is the Government’s decision that the legislation should be considered—our job as parliamentarians is to put in place proper arrangements to see that parliamentary scrutiny takes place in accordance with our constitutional requirements. The problem with the virtual Committees as currently proposed is that this is not the case. The Leader said that Members can take part, but in order to take part—as she said in her remarks—they have to give advance notice of the specific amendments they wish to participate in. This is a radical breach from the House’s normal procedures. Members cannot vote in Committee; there are no arrangements for voting. There are no arrangements at all for spontaneous contributions, and at the moment there is no automatic procedure for recommittal.
I therefore press the Leader: what will happen to these Bills after their virtual consideration? What is the procedure, if noble Lords are dissatisfied with the consideration that has taken place in virtual Committee, for recommitting? My understanding—the Leader can correct me—is that the House itself has to vote for recommittal; it is not an automatic procedure. In this amendment I propose an automatic procedure of recommittal to a Committee of the whole House, which would be either the House itself or the hybrid House, if by then we have the hybrid House. It will not otherwise happen. I would be grateful if the Leader could confirm what the arrangements are in respect of  recommittal. If noble Lords are dissatisfied with the consideration that has taken place in virtual Committee, what arrangements will there be for recommittal? If they are not adequate, will she accept my amendment?
The other point of great importance is the temporary nature of these proceedings. If they are to be temporary, the Government should accept a sunset clause. That is the reason I have included the second part of the amendment—that these arrangements for virtual consideration will
“expire on 30 June 2020, or earlier if the House shall so order.”
I would like to press the Leader on one or two specific points. She said that the detailed arrangements for Committee stage were published on Monday. I confess that I have not had a chance to read them, so maybe they are in there. It is not easy to find a lot of the documents being referred to at the moment unless they are pointed up from the Front Bench. Currently, because it is not possible to vote in Grand Committee and decisions can be taken only by unanimity, if noble Lords are not content with proceedings they can object to decisions being taken—I have myself—and they are therefore returned to the House.
In a Committee stage, if a noble Lord online objects to a clause standing part, what happens? Does the clause stand part or not? This is a fairly fundamental constitutional issue. If it stands part, it means that the proceedings in the virtual Committee are of no account, because noble Lords have expressed dissatisfaction and are not prepared to agree to the proceedings, yet the proceedings are still deemed to be agreed. That would be an extreme departure from acceptable parliamentary practice. If Members are allowed to object to clauses standing part, what happens if they so object and the relevant clause is not deemed to be agreed by the virtual Committee? The only solution to that issue I can see is that those clauses are then remitted for reconsideration of the Bill by a Committee of the House.
I would be grateful if the Leader could answer my specific questions. Will she tell us of the Government’s willingness to see Bills recommitted after virtual Committee if there are concerns, what the procedure would be and whether she would be prepared to accept a sunset clause so that for only a very few Bills in these emergency conditions are we expected to undergo this very substandard scrutiny which in no other circumstance but this crisis would your Lordships think acceptable? I beg to move.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I want to say a few words on this, because the issue of Committees is important and I hope that the noble Baroness can say a bit more about it. It is my understanding that if an amendment is debated in Committee but not voted on, the same amendment can be re-tabled on Report. If noble Lords are dissatisfied with any debate, considering it inadequate or wishing to contribute, they will have the opportunity to do so. That means that our proceedings could be much longer in order to get to that point—it emphasises how superior Chamber proceedings are to Virtual Proceedings.
Committees normally meet on two days a week, Monday and Wednesday or Tuesday and Thursday. It is therefore imperative that the House moves to a  proper four-day working week as a matter of urgency—I think that is scheduled from Monday 18 May. Can the Leader confirm that there will be a normal four-day working week for your Lordships’ House from then? That is important for our overall business.
I also understand the issue about capacity; the point has been well made. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said how much we appreciate the work that has been done to get the Virtual Proceedings running in the way they are—I think that most of us have found them better than we anticipated. I take some responsibility for them not being broadcast over the first few days after the recess because I said that, come what may and even if we were not being broadcast, we had to be back, with the opportunity to question the Government. I was pleased that that lasted for only a few days, but it was important that, whatever the situation, we returned on 21 April to fulfil our responsibilities—even if it was inadequate, we had to do so. It has steadily improved since then and we pay tribute to those responsible.
There is an issue of capacity with Committees. We currently have gaps between business that we would not normally have. Will the Leader keep under consideration sitting on a Friday? If we cannot undertake the work that we have on those four days, is it possible to use a Friday? For example, if Committees were not able to meet because the House was sitting or a debate was taking longer, we could have that open as an extra sitting day in the same way as we have sometimes had sitting Fridays.
The noble Baroness should take some pride, and I press her again to pay tribute to those who have wanted to take part in the proceedings—I think she missed that out. I say that in respect of her own Front Bench, of mine and of all those working on the Back Benches and across the House. They wish to engage because they value the work of this House. We have only to look at how the work of this House is regarded outside. I received numerous representations about the debate on the PNQ last week on child protection, even though it was brief, recognising that, across the board and in all parties, this was the House taking that issue very seriously. If we cannot do our business in the four days—and I ask the Leader to confirm that there will be a solid four days as soon as possible—we should keep open the possibility of Friday sittings.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I had of course made a note to thank all Peers across all Benches, including the Opposition Front Bench, and of course I thank my Ministers as well for everything they have done to contribute to these proceedings. I apologise for having failed to say that in my response last time, but I wholeheartedly support the words of the noble Baroness.
I will address some comments. Yes, we will be returning on Mondays. I think that was the correct date—I do not know all the dates in May off the top of my head. That will be published in Forthcoming Business and we will move towards four-day weeks from then. The usual channels will always keep business under review to make sure that we are doing everything we can. Obviously we will have to see how Committee  stages work in virtual proceedings, but we want to balance scrutiny of government with making sure that legislation comes through, and those conversations will continue in the constructive way they always do.
Quite a lot of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, are mentioned in the guidance, which will be circulated to all Peers. It probably has not been done yet, because we did not want to assume that this Motion would be passed, but as soon as it has been, the guidance will be published. If any noble Lords have further questions, please get in touch and we will clarify them. We have attempted to consider most issues, but I accept that we may not have considered some things. However, I can say to the noble Lord that, as the noble Baroness rightly said, post Committee we will move on to Report, and we have amended the rules to allow amendments in Committee to be brought back on Report if there is not unanimous support; so we are having a bit of flexibility and recognising the virtual proceedings.
The same rules apply to Virtual Proceedings as to Grand Committee, and we feel that there will be ample time for scrutiny. As I said, the noble Lord will see that the sessions for Committees are in one-and-a-half-hour slots, again for all the procedural reasons. Regarding Committee stage as a whole, we normally have various days in which to look at Bills in Committee, and that will continue. So while the sessions themselves may be time limited, that does not mean that Committee stage as such is time limited.
As I say, we are also looking at Report. Members of the commission will know that work is ongoing to build a remote voting function, which needs to be built now that the Commons have, I believe, got their system up and running and are planning to start using it. Some of the gremlins they faced have now been sorted out, and we will be building a similar system so that we will be able to vote as well.
I hope that that deals with all the issues but, as I say, guidance is being published, and if that does not answer all the questions, we will be happy to provide more detail. I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: The big question raised by what the Leader said—I will come back on one of the other points in a moment—is what will happen on Report. Can she give to the House an undertaking that there will be no Report on a Bill until we have a hybrid House, so we do not face the same issues on Report as she has just outlined in Committee about noble Lords needing to indicate in advance that they can participate? That is an absolutely crucial issue.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I am afraid that I cannot make a commitment on a hybrid House, because I do not know when we are going to move to it or what the guidance will be. We are working towards facilities for a hybrid House at the moment, which we are all committed to, but I am afraid that I cannot make promises about how practical it will be, or anything on that basis. However, we will ensure that when Members wish to vote on proceedings on Report, we will have a system up and running to ensure that they can do that.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: But it would be unacceptable at the moment unless we could have some other discussions. My instinct is that Report stage of proceedings as a virtual Chamber would be rather unsatisfactory, so let us keep this under discussion and review. It would be extraordinarily difficult to do it in a way that would satisfy your Lordships’ House.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the Leader has left me more concerned after her remarks than I was before, for precisely the reason that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. It seems that the only way in which these virtual Committee proceedings would be tolerable to the House is if the House meets at Report stage, so that we can have the proper give and take that we accept as part of our proceedings, people do not have to give advance notice of their desire to participate, and we are not forced to make a really significant trade-off in the quality of our scrutiny when making the law. I put on record, which is all that we can do at the moment, my extreme dissatisfaction. That is not just on my part; I have spoken to many noble Lords who cannot be present today about these arrangements and there is very widespread dissatisfaction.
Since the Procedure Committee has not done a very good job so far of taking account of the concerns of the House, the only way that one can send it a message as to the gravity of these concerns—I understand it is meeting on Monday—is to say that, if it were to come forward with any proposal for the fully virtual consideration of Bills on Report, there would be a very significant backlash from all parts of the House on any such arrangement. I am extremely concerned that the Leader of the House has not been able to give an undertaking today that that will not happen.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I may be able to satisfy my noble friend in some way by saying that this would not be discussed by just the Procedure Committee—the usual channels would also discuss it. I have to say that I have grave concerns. Until we have a fully functioning House or an interim stage of it is hybrid, we may be unable to take Report stages, so we have to have those discussions quite urgently.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, who has reinforced exactly what I have been saying. As far as I can tell, the great majority of your Lordships would not regard it as acceptable to have a fully virtual Report stage. We obviously have no alternative but to agree to these proposals, but this is done very clearly on that understanding.
To reiterate, it is not clear to me who makes these decisions—I am even more confused after these debates about where the Procedure Committee, the House of Lords Commission and the usual channels come in—but whichever of the various bodies and shadowy institutions it is, I hope that they take account of the remarks made in the House today and that we are not placed in a position in a fortnight’s time of having a resolution tabled which would lead to a fully virtual Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.

Business of the House
 - Timing of Debates

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Moved by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of the Lord Archbishop of York, which is set down to take place in a Virtual Proceeding today, be time-limited to 3 hours.

Amendment to the Motion

Lord Adonis: Moved by Lord Adonis
Leave out “3” and insert “5”.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that we substitute “five” for “three”—that is, we have five hours for the debate this afternoon, not three. I was very much hoping that the Leader of the House might accept this amendment; if she is willing to accept it, I do not need to proceed further. I see that she is shaking her head, so in that case, I need to detain the House for longer.
This afternoon, we are faced with a situation for the first time. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said he has been in the House for a quarter of a century—he does not look any the worse for it, if I may say so. I am a spring chicken: I have been here for only 15 years. However, this is the first debate in which I have sought to participate in the House—it may be the first time this has happened in the history of the House, apart from at Oral Questions when of course not everyone can get in—when noble Lords who have wished to speak in the debate are not being allowed to do so.
Because of the need to reconcile the Virtual Proceedings with the number of people who wish to speak and the three-hour time limit, which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has arbitrarily imposed, many noble Lords are being told that they cannot speak in the debate. I am one of the fortunate ones who—I am not quite sure by what procedure—my noble friend the Labour Chief Whip has chosen to allow to speak rather than many of my noble friends who are not allowed. It is completely unacceptable that noble Lords should not be able to fulfil their parliamentary duties and speak in a debate.
The debate in question is that tabled by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, calling attention to the impact of the coronavirus crisis on poverty and disadvantage. That goes to the heart of the crisis that the country is undergoing at the moment. If we have any role at all, it is to debate such issues and to bring them to the attention of the House. The House is meeting only in a part-time capacity at the moment anyway. So far as I am aware, there is no reason whatever why the proceedings today cannot last for five rather than three hours. If they lasted for five hours, all noble Lords who wished to speak would be able to do so, there would be full consideration of the issues and we would be performing our duties  properly. Instead, the noble Baroness the Leader is arbitrarily cutting the proceedings of the House and not allowing noble Lords to take part.
If the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept my amendment, she will find that we routinely object, and, as soon as we are able, we might start voting on the time limits for debates—something that has never happened in the history of the House. She needs to understand that this House works through give and take, and one element of that is that noble Lords are able to make their contributions. That is the whole basis and understanding on which the usual channels have worked. If, through force majeure on the part of the Government, which is what the noble Baroness is proposing at the moment, noble Lords are not able to make their contributions, the understandings on which the business of this House is conducted will break down. Indeed, they are breaking down at the moment. I can tell the noble Baroness that, from discussions I have had with other noble Lords, that is happening, because noble Lords are being told that they are not allowed to speak in a debate this afternoon. As I said, that has never happened before.
I am very sorry that the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept this amendment. It seems to be perfectly reasonable. Any ordinary member of the public looking at this debate would find it incomprehensible that we are not able to debate the Motion in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on the impact of Covid-19 on poverty for five rather than three hours in order to give it fuller consideration. The noble Baroness has not offered a single good reason why we cannot do so. If she persists in imposing this arbitrary time limit on the House, I give her notice that in future I will seek to amend all the Motions relating to the time limits for business of the House to provide for more time. There will be a growing head of steam on this issue across the House and, as soon as we are able to vote, the Government might find that they lose control of the procedures of the House entirely. That will not be in the best interests of the Government or maybe even the House as a whole. I beg to move.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I want to speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. The noble Baroness shakes her head but I too wished to speak in the debate this afternoon and was intending to flag up the global impact. It will be enormously more challenging to meet the sustainable development goals after this pandemic. However, I withdrew from that debate because about 15 Liberal Democrats wished to speak. Therefore, I am an example of what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has said. It is incredibly important, globally, to address this issue and I regret that I cannot put that case this afternoon.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: Perhaps I may be of help. Obviously talks have been taking place in the usual channels. I understand that she cannot support what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is saying, but we are making every effort to end these time limits by widening opportunities in debates, extending our hours and sitting for an extra day. We are moving towards that and I wonder whether she would  formally give that backing so that eventually we get back to the point where we do not have time limits or limits on the number of speakers who can take part.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I entirely agree that today’s debate is extremely important and I am delighted that we have been able to facilitate it. Our Benches have, quite rightly, given a Conservative Party debate to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and I look forward to what I am sure will be an extremely interesting and informed debate by all noble Lords taking part.
I have to reiterate to noble Lords that the House authorities, the Digital Service and the broadcast team are at maximum capacity. They are not able to facilitate longer debates or those with more than 50 Members taking part. I know that it is frustrating but I am afraid that there are practical, administrative and broadcast restrictions, and we are working within those strictures.
I do not dispute that that is frustrating. As a Government, as the usual channels and as the House authorities, we are doing our best to facilitate the Virtual Proceedings, but I am afraid there are limits to what everyone is able to do. I know noble Lords are frustrated but I cannot stress enough how hard people are working—and the hours they are working—to do this. The House of Commons is using broadcasting procedures, as is our House. This is not about trying to curtail discussion and debate, but about trying to facilitate as much as we can within the boundaries within which we are having to work. I am sorry to keep saying it, but it is important to put that on the record.
I am sorry that I cannot agree to the noble Lord’s request at this point—I am afraid it will not be possible—but I hope that everyone who participates in the debate enjoys their time in it. I have no doubt that they will make extremely important points that we as a Government and everyone listening will take into account and reflect on.

Lord Alderdice: I want simply to draw the noble Baroness’s attention to one reason why people find this frustrating: the repeated assertions about what was technically possible and possible for practical reasons have turned out not to be the case at all. She needs to understand that some of us have been working online and virtually for a long time and in many circumstances, both nationally and internationally. We know what is possible and what is not. There seems to be a lack either of imagination and creativity or of something else. She needs to understand that that is one reason why trust is breaking down on this point.

Lord Adonis: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. How can I choose my words diplomatically? It is not credible to assert that it is not technically possible to sustain an online debate for longer than three hours, as the noble Baroness asserts. That is an assertion—she has hidden behind the technical difficulties—but I do not believe that it is credible. I participate in many  virtual meetings that take longer than that. As far as I am aware, no aspect of Zoom means that a meeting cannot continue for more than three hours.
I am afraid we are coming to a sharp disagreement here. It is my view that the reason this is happening is to do not with the technical capacity of the House but with the Government’s desire to suppress debate. That is why, unless this issue is rectified soon, the noble Baroness will find significant ongoing controversy. The precise reason for that is that we are all taking seriously our duties as parliamentarians to consider the Covid-19 crisis and its impact on the country.
Walter Bagehot famously said that an assembly that does not meet is deficient in a primary degree. The House of Lords cannot undertake its responsibilities if it does not meet. Our duty is to see that we meet and give the proper consideration that we should to these weighty issues. I simply do not think that the arbitrary time limits that the noble Baroness seeks to impose are satisfactory or technically required. On that basis, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.

Business of the House
 - Timing of Debates

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Moved by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford, which is set down to take place in a Virtual Proceeding today, be time-limited to 2 hours.
Motion agreed.

Business of the House
 - Timing of Debates

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Moved by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Boswell of Aynho, which is set down to take place in a Virtual Proceeding on Tuesday 12 May, be time-limited to 3 hours and that the time limit may be varied by the unanimous agreement of the members taking part in that Virtual Proceeding at the commencement of proceedings.
Motion agreed.

Business of the House
 - Timing of Debates

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Moved by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of Baroness Boycott, which is set down to take place in a Virtual Proceeding on Thursday 14 May, be time-limited to 3 hours and that the time limit may be varied by the unanimous agreement of the members taking part in that Virtual Proceeding at the commencement of proceedings.
Motion agreed.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL]
 - Order of Commitment

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Moved by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the order of commitment of 17 March be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Virtual Committee.
Motion agreed.

Employment Allowance (Increase of Maximum Amount) Regulations 2020
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the Regulations laid before the House on 12 March be approved. Considered in Virtual Proceedings on 5 May.
Motion agreed.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) (Amendment) Order 2020
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 March be approved. Considered in Virtual Proceedings on 5 May.
Motion agreed.

Budget: Economic and Fiscal Outlook
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment of the medium-term economic and fiscal position as set out in the latest Budget document and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme. Considered in Virtual Proceedings on 5 May.
Motion agreed.
House adjourned at 2.06 pm.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

The announcement was made in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, the Virtual Proceedings on the debate in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York will now commence. This is a time-limited debate. I will first call the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in the usual way. The question will then be put. Then I will call each speaker on the list in the usual way. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to speaking and returned to mute once their speech has finished.

Income Equality and Sustainability
 - Motion to Consider

The Archbishop of York: Moved by The Archbishop of York
That the Virtual Proceedings do consider the case for increasing income equality and sustainability in the light of the recent health emergency.
The Motion was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Archbishop of York: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip and the usual channels for granting me this opportunity to move a Motion that is very dear to my heart—thank you. I commend Her Majesty’s Government for their rapid action in the current crisis and, through unprecedented public spending, working to protect jobs and avert millions of redundancies. It is in the light of this recent health emergency that I beseech your Lordships’ House to take note of the case for increasing income equality and sustainability.
Last Thursday, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, opened a Question for Short Debate on Covid-19 and people living in poverty. I believe that what we are doing today has the potential to make a lasting difference. As Amelia Earhart, the first woman to fly across the Atlantic, said:
“The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity.”
As long ago as 28 April 1909, Winston Churchill, then president of the Board of Trade, gave a speech in the other place in which he said:
“It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/1909; col. 388]
Not much has changed since. That principle remains as strong as ever in our national life.
Ten years later in 1919, after a world war and a global flu pandemic, the International Labour Organization constitution affirmed:
“Peace and harmony in the world requires an adequate living wage.”
The economic argument that workers should be paid a fair and living wage was not new even then. In 1776, Adam Smith, said to be the father of modern market economics, wrote:
“Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.”
Many jobs fall far short of this ideal for millions of workers across the United Kingdom. The truth we now see is that the vast majority of front-line key workers are hard-pressed on poverty wages.
Kate Pickett’s and Richard Wilkinson’s ground-breaking book The Spirit Level showed that a wide range of social problems are more common in societies with larger income differences between the rich and the poor. The solution must be to narrow the gap between wages and basic living costs. The creation of an economic equality and sustainability commission would help to facilitate the creation of more income equality and a fairer society that would solve many of the pressing social problems such as the supply of genuinely affordable homes and social care provision. David Cameron, before he was Prime Minister, acknowledged:
“We all know, in our heart, that as long as there is deep poverty living systematically side by side with great riches, we all remain the poorer for it.”
When I was Bishop of Stepney, I soon became aware that low-paid workers there were having to work two or three minimum wage jobs but still struggled to make ends meet. At that time, the Living Wage Foundation, started in Bethnal Green in 1997, called on businesses to recognise the important role of their “invisible” workers and pay them a real living wage.
A recent Living Wage Foundation publication from 3 March 2020 quotes two case studies of year 6 pupils. The first says:
“Mum works extremely long hours to make ends meet—often do not see parents for long periods. Choice between paying bills and paying for food.”
The second says:
“Mum works as a Care Worker and is paid £8.21 an hour. Have to do the dishes and keep things tidy at home—I have my chores to do. Mum is not supposed to work weekends but works Saturday and Sunday—comes home, has dinner, watches TV and goes to sleep. I am lonely. This”—
a living wage—
“would make a difference to my family.”
I am very proud to support the proposals from the Living Wage Commission, which I chaired, for the real living wage, calculated according to the cost of living, providing an hourly rate of pay that is independently calculated each year. Rates for 2019-20 are £9.30 across the UK and £10.75 in London. This living wage applies to all directly employed staff over the age of 18, regardless of the number of hours they work. We need to distinguish between Her Majesty’s Government’s national living wage—a higher minimum wage rate for over-25s—and what I referred to as the real living wage, through which families do not go short.
If we support the principle that those who are least well-off should get the most help, it is shocking that children living in poverty have not been the number one priority in the unprecedented package of support  announced by the Chancellor. The coronavirus national emergency is already exposing the inadequacy of the safety net provided by our social security system, as more people who have not previously relied on benefits get to experience how mean it really is. Hopefully, this will lead to a more generous and compassionate system. So, why not increase the national living wage to £10 per hour for everyone now? The time has come for us all to stop talking about welfare benefits and talk instead about social insurance, a term which underlines both that our focus should be on need, and that we are all in this together.
The biblical vision is not of a world in which individualism and consumerism are the purposes for which we are made, but one in which we are created for fellowship and mutual responsibility. It is of a world in which the principal aim of policy is to enhance the well-being—that is, the personal and communal flourishing—of all in society. The challenge is to articulate a vision of that eudaimonia; not a word much used in Yorkshire or in your Lordships’ House, but a useful Greek word to describe the well-being and flourishing of a community and all those within it.
Dame Julia Unwin, in her chapter in the book I edited, On Rock or Sand? Firm Foundations for Britain’s Future, analysed the changing face of poverty in this country, including the rising gap between the rich and the poor. She also highlighted the new and deeply worrying fact that for the first time, the historic link between poverty and unemployment has now been broken. She writes:
“The notion that hard work will enable people to leave poverty and build a life of self-reliance has been broken. Instead the prospects of work provide intermittent activity, limited reward and no security.”
After the current crisis, the major concern of our age is sustainability. It is becoming ever clearer that income equality is a precondition for moving to environmental sustainability. It now seems inevitable that people all over the world will suffer endless environmental crises and hazards, leading to displacement and food shortages. As well as a need for better systems for emergency aid, much will depend on a strong ethos of mutual support between neighbours as well as between countries. That is fostered by greater equality, as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have shown in both The Spirit Level and more recently in The Inner Level. Greater equality is the basis for stronger community life and indeed a greater capacity to be united in a response to the climate emergency.
It is therefore crucially important to reduce income differences both before and after tax. We need to make income tax highly progressive again and to have higher taxes. To reduce inequalities before tax, all employers should, as a minimum, pay the real living wage. In English cities where Labour-controlled local authorities have set up fairness commissions, they have almost always become living wage employers. They have successfully communicated their real living wage commitment to everyone they do business with and have encouraged them to consider implementing the real living wage for the real cost of living.
The current crisis has made all of us aware of the need to recognise the value of our key workers. Please listen to the words of Linda, a carer:
“Since I started being paid the living wage I haven’t had to worry about if I can pay the bills and more importantly than that, I get to spend time every day with my mum and daughter and I’m not falling asleep on the sofa as soon as I get in. I eat better, I sleep better and I’m much less stressed”.
That is from a page in the Living Wage Foundation’s guide.
The Scottish Government and Wirral Council recently took bold steps to support care workers, committing to uplift them to the real living wage—including ancillary workers such as cleaners and catering staff. Some of the local employers have been paying their workers a real living wage since long before the crisis, recognising that higher pay benefits not only workers but businesses, through lower staff turnover and lower absenteeism. Care work is a huge industry with around 1 million workers supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society, often for incredibly low pay. For too long, its importance has been undervalued and underfunded but now there is a real opportunity to create lasting change in the sector.
As we emerge from this crisis, we must look again at how we value this work and pay for it. It is time to rethink how government, public bodies and businesses work together in order to bounce back better and ensure that there is adequate funding, so that all care work is rewarded with, at least, a real living wage. Then, we must deliver fair pay rises for our key workers and rewards for workers across the economy, to restore what they have lost through 10 years of cuts and slow growth. Let us make paying the real living wage the litmus test for a fair recovery. Let us help our country become a place where the wellsprings of solidarity—of a new, undivided society—can begin to spring up, and then go beyond the real living wage. Income inequality is the great giant of our time, which we must slay. The real living wage is a crucial tool in our armoury, but the living wage is a first and vital step in challenging inequality.
Let me end by sharing with your Lordships the four guiding principles which have impelled me to work tirelessly to promote the real living wage. The first is that all human beings are of equal worth in the sight of God. There is no one and no group of whom we can say “They are less important” or “They don’t matter”. The needs of the other person are always as important as my own. The second is a commitment to offer everyone the opportunity to flourish. A society is well-ordered only in so far as it offers ways of flourishing to all its members. The third is a recognition of our human interrelatedness and interdependence. As the African proverb says, “When a tiny toe is hurting, the whole body stoops down to attend to that toe”. The reality is that we are all inextricably bound up with each other’s welfare. We rely on each other; if one suffers, sooner or later we will all suffer. Covid-19 and the lockdown have vividly demonstrated this for us all. The fourth is the need to accept our duty of responsibility by using our God-given potential both for ourselves and to serve others. I beg to move.

Baroness Penn: My Lords, I remind your Lordships that this is a time-limited debate. This means that contributions are limited to two minutes, to enable all speakers to contribute and the Minister to give the fullest possible response.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I congratulate the most reverend Primate on initiating this debate. It is timely, since Covid-19 has provided politicians with the opportunity to put well-being before growth. The crisis which has brought so much pain and damage has also given rise to greater social interaction and neighbourliness, and a desire not only to take care of each other but to show respect and affection for those who care for us. NHS workers and carers across the country have become an intrinsic, tangible part of our family and daily life, whom we now depend on and embrace. Their prominence has been made possible as fast living and the consumer-driven lifestyles that fuel income inequality have been put on hold. In their place, the appeal for voluntary helpers has exceeded all expectations. Party politics effectively evaporated in the corridors of care. In place of prejudices and barriers, we are witnessing social cohesion, friendliness and mutual support. People have rediscovered those they live with.
Income inequalities are divisive the world over. As with other sustainability issues, the social and business consequences are inseparable. Correlations between a nation’s degree of income inequality and its rates of domestic abuse, crime and obesity will come to the fore again. Every one of these “social” problems blights and imposes a huge tax on society. But this health emergency provides the opportunity for a new approach and for closer collaboration, transitioning to sustainability in an overcrowded world.
It is not just our politicians but our companies, our religious leaders and our opinion formers who have a responsibility as we emerge from Covid-19. We must all take ownership; we must all take action; we must all take an interest. We must not ignore the important lesson we have learned: that we can put well-being before the excesses of economic growth.

Lord Livermore: My Lords, it is a privilege to pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, whose commitment to equality shone through in his opening speech, as it has done throughout his career. I hope that he will continue his campaigning work in the years ahead.
Britain is a deeply unequal society. Income inequality is the fifth highest in the OECD, and there are vast inequalities in wealth, opportunity, education and life expectancy. It is tempting to believe that the Covid-19 pandemic is a great leveller, yet these inequalities have become greatly magnified. The economic effects of the pandemic are disproportionately experienced by the low paid and the young. Those working in shut-down sectors are seven times more likely to be the lowest paid, and those under 25 are three times more likely to work in hospitality or retail—sectors that have closed entirely. The health risks are disproportionately borne by the poor, those from black and minority-ethnic backgrounds, and women, because they are more likely to be key workers, live in cramped accommodation, or have an underlying health condition.
Alongside exposing the inequalities in our society, this health emergency also risks exacerbating them further. Unemployment will be concentrated in the  lowest-paid sectors, potentially scarring future employment and earnings. Those soon to leave school or graduate will enter a labour market in severe recession, with lower job prospects and wages. For school-age children, prolonged periods out of the classroom are particularly damaging to those from poorer backgrounds.
Despite this bleak picture, the response to the virus has shown us a better way. While homelessness has doubled over the past decade, funding has now been found to house more than 90% of rough sleepers. Meanwhile, air quality has dramatically improved, as nitrogen dioxide levels have halved. No one, of course, would choose for life to continue as now, but we do face a choice about the society we want to be. As we commemorate VE Day, let us remember how that victory signalled a desire for change, and go forward with the same determination to build a new social contract, fit for the future.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie: My Lords, I wish to support the case for a universal basic income. The current crisis has shown the need for people to have access to basic funding, yet the machinery to deliver cash to many people does not exist. Many key workers on whom we now know a functioning survival economy depends—not just health and social care workers but delivery drivers, shop assistants and food producers—are all paid below average. Others, such as those on zero-hours contracts, those living within the cash economy and some self-employed people, are missing out altogether.
The post-Covid-19 scenario may be for higher unemployment and less job security. Work patterns are likely to change radically as more technical solutions are applied. It is true that new technologies may create new jobs, as some argue, but they may also make some jobs redundant. That will leave a small number of lucrative activities; some, but fewer, low-skilled and lower-paid jobs; and, overall, not enough employment to go round. We surely cannot contemplate a society were a small minority corner the jobs and opportunities, leaving the overwhelming majority behind. It is not only unfair but likely to prove politically unsustainable.
The scale of government intervention in the past two months shows that a universal basic income could be affordable. If it were set at between £50 and £100 a week, it would provide basic peace of mind and security, but not at a level that would deter people from joining the workforce if they could. It would also make people more willing to engage in consumption, and would therefore act as a stimulus to the economy. It certainly should not be buttonholed in any ideological category. It can be applied in a way that is economically and socially beneficial, right across society, and could sit alongside other targeted benefits. It could be funded through taxation in much the same way as child benefit, which is clawed back progressively, up to 100% from higher earners. A universal basic income would make a significant contribution to evening out income inequality. It is an idea whose time has come.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, one of the main economic risks from the pandemic will be the likelihood of mass long-term unemployment, as we experienced  in the 1980s. Today, the Resolution Foundation predicts a 600,000 increase in youth unemployment this year—this is just the beginning. The pandemic is destroying economies across the globe, and recovery will take time. Long-term unemployment destroys a person’s confidence and mental health, while employers are very reluctant to take on demotivated, depressed, unemployed people. The most at risk of unemployment are the least well qualified; this is fundamentally an issue of inequality.
At a time of mass unemployment, the punitive universal credit regime, providing minimal benefits within a fear-inducing sanctions framework, becomes immoral. Unreformed, it will create serious mental health problems, crime, and an even bigger drugs problem, funded by crime, than we have already.
A part of the solution will be active labour market policies and the job guarantee. In 2005 and 2007, the OECD published evidence of the effectiveness of such policies, which ensure that, after a specified period out of work, an unemployed person will be offered work in the public or charity sectors at the rate for the job, probably at the minimum wage. Denmark and the Netherlands were examples of countries which pursued such policies and had low unemployment against the trend. Had the UK adopted these policies, we would not have had 2.5 million out of work for about four years after the global financial crisis of 2008. Yes, there would be a net cost to the Exchequer, but the benefits would far outweigh those costs: the improved employability of those involved and higher tax revenue and lower benefit costs over time; and, at the personal level, less mental breakdown, crime and drug use. In essence, it would mean greater equality and sustainability and a healthier and happier society.

Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, first, I thank the most reverend Primate for tabling this debate today, as well as for a lifetime’s work of battling inequality. May we continue to benefit from his wisdom and prophetic voice. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby.
I wish to highlight the issue of those particularly at risk because they do not have the right to access public funds. Migrants are more likely to be self-employed, in temporary work, or working in industries which have been especially badly hit. They are less likely to own their own homes, risking homelessness if they lose their income. Concerns have been raised that migrants may be compelled to continue working even if they become ill as to stop would be to risk destitution, which puts their and others’ health at risk.
We rely on the contribution of migrants to our society and economy. Some 850,000 migrants work in our health and social care sector, while they make up 40% of our food manufacturing industry. These are essential industries. They are working on our farms so we can have food on the table. We owe them deep gratitude.
After the Grenfell Tower disaster, the Government confirmed that
“all victims, irrespective of their immigration status, can access the services they need, including healthcare and accommodation.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/17; col. 167.]
Can the Government give a similar confirmation now, and suspend the NRPF condition to allow migrants to access public funds?
Many of those without access to public funds are supported by small charities, which themselves face existential threats due to the health emergency. Will the Government continue to offer more support to those charities before they are no longer able to function and pick up their normal operations?
Christ teaches us that every human is equal before God. I pray that, as we face these extraordinary times, we seek to enact policies that affirm the dignity and worth of all as we have seen it in their contribution to us.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not in favour of a universal basic income. It does not add up arithmetically, it does not improve living standards and, where it has been tested, it has not been a great success. I ask my noble friend about food and feeding those on the lowest incomes—a subject one of the House’s committees is currently looking at. The statistics are that, in 2017, 90,000 people died prematurely due to ill health. Some 20% of the population suffered from obesity, and the cost to this country in that year was £54 billion. Much needs to be done by the Government and us, both corporately and individually, to reduce these numbers.
Food standards and quality are integral to this. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me, in taking back our sovereignty and tackling this problem, which is more important—maintaining our high food and welfare standards or agreeing a trade deal that allows cheap food imports farmed to less rigorous standards? I also ask my noble friend what plans the Government have to secure the supply of basic food to those who can least afford it, particularly in these troubled times.

Lord Wood of Anfield: My Lords, Covid has revealed the injustice of inequality in a savage way. It is a disease that has disproportionately hit the poorest. Lockdown has further exacerbated these inequalities, and remote working is mostly a luxury of white-collar professions. Those on low pay and in the gig economy have little financial option but to carry on working, with all the risks that that brings. Our children are now schooled remotely, but the Sutton Trust shows that huge inequalities exist in the provision of education. However, I believe that there is a Beveridge moment coming as the crisis unfolds—a chance to come together to shape the kind of country we want to rebuild. I make a plea for this Beveridge moment to have four key principles about equality at its heart.
First, we need to rectify what has become one of Britain’s largest comparative disadvantages: our long tail of low-skilled, low-wage workers. We have too many workers who revolve in and out of no work and bad work, with no protection or assets, who are told to take any job and climb an escalator of prospects that, frankly, does not exist. It has to stop.
Secondly, we need to redesign our public services to place prevention of life-chance inequalities at their heart. From health care to social care, education to  housing and transport to culture, every service should have the goal of pre-empting deprivation at its core.
Thirdly, we must put equality and social justice at the heart of the tax choices we will have to face as we look to pay for our response to this crisis. Germany responded to reunification with a solidarity tax, a supplementary income tax for the wealthiest Germans. I believe it is time for us to contemplate a UK version of this and to grasp the nettle of taxing the sources of huge inequalities in wealth, in particular land and housing.
Lastly, the impact of Covid on the poorest countries is likely to be more catastrophic than in the developed world, but the architecture of international co-operation is now weaker than at any time since 1945. The UK should lead the effort to rectify that and make the assembly of an international coalition for greater global equality a foreign policy priority.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, there is a business phrase: “Never waste a crisis”. We must not waste this crisis. We must not accept a return to the status quo. Our two priorities have to be climate change and a fairer, more equal society.
I will talk for a moment about Wales, my home country, which for decades has been the poorest part of the UK. Some 730,000 people, a quarter of the population, live in poverty, and income in Wales is about 90% of the UK average. This is a product of different things. Wales is a heavily rural area, and rural incomes tend to be lower. Tourism is very important, but the hotels are shut and the festivals cancelled. Farming faces an uncertain future because of Brexit.
Wales has also never fully recovered from the collapse of the heavy industries and the closure of the mines, but there have been very bright spots of investment—Tata Steel and Airbus, for example. But in the last weeks, both those companies have warned of their perilous financial position. We now face the danger of well-paid, skilled jobs being lost. So poverty in Wales is highly likely to increase after the Covid crisis.
My call is for long-term investment as a priority, first of all in education, from nursery schools through to universities, and secondly in infrastructure, from 5G to rail electrification. These investments must serve to develop our priorities.

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock: My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for securing this important and timely debate and for his learned and compassionate contribution.
The Government instigated new fiscal policies in the light of Covid-19. These have been welcomed as they were designed in part to alleviate financial disruption to households and therefore promote health security within our borders. The population has adhered to these current restrictions, demonstrating the value to society of the significant investment, but it is not just low income that contributes to inequalities in our society; it is the very varied contracts that people have at the moment. This is the reality for carers who are  employed, who may often work on zero-hour or minimum- hour contracts. I hope that, following this crisis, those carers do not have to resort to food banks, or face rent arrears or the difficulty of not being able to work.
I return to the issue of instability of income and low incomes generally. The Taylor review of modern working practices says that we must make flexible working the default in employment contracts. If we did this and moved towards the target rate of 66% of median earnings as a national living wage, we would begin to move towards greater equality in income levels and stability in the country.
I ask the Minister to inform the House about the likely timetable for the introduction of the expected employment Bill, which may well address some of the inequalities that I and other noble Lords will outline today.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: Most of us are probably in favour of more equality in general. Some will remember that the Duke of Omnium, Trollope’s Liberal Prime Minister, was especially in favour of perfect equality—yet he was vastly rich and owned thousands of acres.
The best way of helping everyone materially in the long term is to increase the size of the overall cake. The capitalist system is by far the most successful ever devised for making a country richer—compare Cuba and Venezuela with the United States and Canada, or, better, South Korea with North Korea. But—and I accept that it is a substantial “but”—the distribution that results from naked capitalism is not regarded as fair, which is why we have progressive taxation, welfare, the NHS and the living wage, which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has of course pioneered. All these allow us to balance fairness with the needs of economics. Moreover, the best measure of equality in a society is generally agreed to be the Gini coefficient, and the fact is that, at least since the financial crisis of 2008, movements in the index have shown that UK society has become somewhat more equal.
As we all know, we have to find enough to pay for the NHS, schools and social care—£230 billion last year, comparable to the total raised from income tax and corporation tax—and, lest we forget, the main provider of taxes is business and the people that it pays and employs. This is why the lockdown must end soon, or we will not be able to afford so much that we value.
Finally, the crisis has shown us that people’s need is not for money alone. We need a society where people show care and respect for our fellow humans. Look how moved we have been by our army of volunteers. Kindness matters, and so do religious networks; one of the horrors of the current rules is that churches and mosques are shut.
I warmly welcome the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby; I have much enjoyed evensong in her beautiful and historic cathedral.

Bishop of Derby: My Lords, Jesus said,
“seek first the Kingdom of God”,
and in your Lordships’ House, I have caught glimpses of that kingdom: in the warm welcome, in the kind advice of officers and staff, in the patient support of the Church of England Parliamentary Unit, and in the substance of the work noble Lords do, as today.
In January 2015, I became the first woman consecrated bishop in the Church of England. I take this opportunity to thank my friend, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for his support and encouragement, and to pay tribute to his integrity and influence. It is true to his priorities that he uses this debate to champion the poor and continue the fight for justice. It was a particular gift to be “called home” a year ago, to serve as Bishop of Derby and I am proud of the ways in which diocesan staff, clergy, schools and congregations have stepped up in these difficult times. Derby and Derbyshire have responded generously to meet the needs of the most vulnerable: they have made known the kingdom of God.
There are common threads running throughout my ministry, including the fight for equal access, inclusion and opportunity; a passion for the arts, culture and sport; and a commitment to children and young people, with particular concern for the most vulnerable and at risk. It is an honour, therefore, to be vice-chair of the Church of England Children’s Society. At this time of national emergency, we know that there is much to be done: to respond to every child; to keep all our children and young people safe; to support the mental health and well-being of our children; and to protect children and families facing increased financial insecurity as a result of this crisis. The inequalities that affect the more than 4 million children in poverty in our country run deep and are systemic, so solutions need to be long-term and sustainable.
When asked about the kingdom of God, Jesus brought a child among them and said,
“of such is the kingdom of heaven”.
I thank noble Lords for their patience in hearing my plea that we put children at the heart of our work for a more just, equitable and sustainable society.

Lord Boateng: My Lords, we warmly welcome the speech of the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and her presence now on the Bishops’ Benches. Above all, we thank the most reverend Primate for his contribution, not just in bringing us this debate but for a lifetime of service to the cause of social solidarity. He spoke, as he has throughout his career—throughout his service, from his time as a curate in Herne Hill, when I remember him well—of the importance of solidarity. He said that we are all in this together. Indeed, we are, but we have to make a reality of that, because the truth of the matter is that we are not a more equal society when, even before the coronavirus, UNICEF estimated that there were 2.5 million children living in food insecurity in our own country. Now it is even worse.
The Rainbow food centre, which I know well, has seen an increase of 42% in the number of children now having to turn to it for sustenance. We have to address this and give serious consideration, I argue, to a universal basic income. It is not true that it is not effective. The evidence is, as the LSE demonstrated only too recently  with Compass, that a £20 billion scheme would lift one-third of people out of poverty. We know that it is being tried in Spain; we ought ourselves to examine it carefully. If we cannot do that, we can increase child benefit for all, and we ought to. We can and we should revisit the two-child rule. Will the Minister assure us that that is being done?
Social solidarity means “ubuntu”. The most reverend Primate knows that well. We are all in this together; let us demonstrate that with practical policies.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby on her excellent maiden speech, and thank the most reverend Primate for all his work in support of this House, but particularly for his tireless campaigning on issues of financial inequality, debt, poverty and homelessness over many years.
Recent data from the Office for National Statistics has shown that people living in more deprived areas have experienced Covid-19 mortality rates of more than double those for people living in less deprived areas. A postcode lottery of morbidity is unacceptable, and the Government simply must tackle the fundamental inequalities that have put some people at greater risk.
A briefing I received from Citizens Advice in Newcastle earlier this week made several proposals that I hope the Government will adopt to assist households as temporary financial interventions are reduced. It suggests that there should be no sudden cut off to the job retention scheme or the income support scheme, and that there should be long-term increases in the safety net provided by universal credit because many people will find it hard to get back to work when lockdown ends. There should also be a recognition that further extensions may be needed for existing mortgage and debt holidays, and it proposes a coronavirus financial hardship fund, which would be different from universal credit in that it would help people facing sudden essential costs, through a grant or a loan. These proposals seem wise. We should remember that furloughed workers on low pay have had a 20% cut to their incomes.
I was a signatory to the recent call to prevent disadvantaged children falling behind in their learning by means of extra tuition through a catch-up premium for their schools. I hope the Government will understand the vital importance of this, to reduce educational inequalities.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: My Lords, I pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who has always been courageously committed to the subject of this debate. As he retires as Archbishop, I wish him well for the next stage of his very distinguished public ministry.
The coronavirus has revealed in the starkest terms that the world we have lived in until now is quite unacceptable. For example, it has long been known that life expectancy in the most deprived areas is about 10 years less than it is in the more affluent areas, so it is not surprising—though still deeply shocking—to see twice as many people dying of the virus in those  deprived areas than in the wealthier parts of the country. We got too used to the old world, with its grotesque inequalities, too resigned to the notion that this is the way that things always must be. They do not always have to be like that.
At the same time, the virus has revealed that another world really is possible. The population have shown the most remarkable solidarity, the Government in their financial rescue plans have acted boldly in the interests of the whole, and the underpaid hospital workers, care workers and others at the front have rightly been recognised as vital key workers. Let us have a world where they are not only clapped, but also paid enough to live on. The average hourly pay for a care worker in the UK is £8.19 an hour. How many of us could live on that?
We cannot think only of those in our country. We must think of the most vulnerable groups across the world, on whom the global economy depends. For example, there are 64 million migrant workers in the world, and in so many countries, crowded into insanitary dormitories. They have been particularly at risk. People used to talk about cheap labour. Let us talk instead about precious human beings. It sometimes seems as though the world is divided between those who, broadly speaking, are beneficiaries of a capitalist economy, and those who are financial slaves because they have no option except to starve. The world that we have inherited is no longer acceptable. Let us find a new, more humane way to live together.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for his service and wish him and his well-esteemed lady a retirement—not necessarily from campaigning, but from his office—as long and happy as it is well deserved.
After the French Revolution, equality became a very prominent issue. In a sermon, Reverend Robert Shirra, a minister in Kirkcaldy, Scotland, examined a number of groups and concluded that equality does not exist. Not necessarily for that conclusion, a street in Kirkcaldy is called after him to the present day. I accept the conclusion that most human groups have a hierarchy and that where the incomes of members of the group are concerned, that usually leads to hierarchy in levels of income. I believe that this terrible virus has taught us very clearly how much our well-being and our lives depend on one another. Those higher up the hierarchy need a strong interest in the well-being of those who are lower. This should also be a powerful factor in the relationship between different groups. Of course, this is not a new thought. The divine head of the faith that the most reverend Primate and I have professed for a long time required:
“Love your neighbour as yourself”.

Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate for choosing this topic and for his years of public service, especially for his care for those on the margins and the risks he has taken for justice—from cutting up his dog collar live on air to protest Mugabe, to being willing to be driven blindfolded  to try to persuade gang members to identify those who killed Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare. Even more impressively, he has even cooked for Mary Berry. The House will miss him in retirement, but it was a delight to hear the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. I look forward to more from her.
Our country is in stasis, our economy in meltdown and our way of life in the spotlight. This crisis is a lens through which we see clearly the way we have chosen to order our society and our world. The disparity in our jobs, our homes and our wealth reveal massive inequality and injustice. Those in overcrowded flats, insecure jobs or freshly unemployed with few savings are having a very different crisis from those who are working at home, jobs and income secure, kids studying online, relishing the peace outside.
Will the Government talk directly to those hardest hit in this crisis before they shape the recovery? It does not have to be like this. We do not have to accept the poverty and inequality, the gig economy and the tax avoidance, the polluters not paying and the erosion of the welfare state. My noble friend Lord Wood is right: this can be a Beveridge moment. We can use this terrible crisis, like the post-war Government did, to say we want a country fit for heroes—in the NHS and social care, in supermarkets and schools, the drivers and refuse collectors, the stressed parents, the desperate carers, the anxious disabled people and the lonely older people. This is a moment of decision. We can make different choices for all of us. The future need not look like the past.

Baroness Kramer: My Lords, I will talk in particular about self-employment. Of course I join others in condemning self-employment that is phoney or abusive, but most of the 5 million independent contract workers prior to Covid were neither phoney nor abused. They brought flexibility to our changing economy and they included many of our most innovative and creative individuals, from IT to industrial design to the arts—a workforce critical to the new economy of the 21st century. The creative industries alone, largely made up of independent contractors, contributed over £1 billion a year to GDP.
The Government finally recognised this in their very welcome Covid self-employment support scheme and to some extent in the bounce-back scheme, although I still think they should have done more, as I have said in previous speeches. But as we move into the next phase, self-employment becomes even more critical. First, many people who have been furloughed will find that they do not have jobs to go back to. Secondly, we need to move into a new economy, not recreate 2019. That means innovation and change.
Universal credit fails to support those seeking to start a self-employed business, whether window cleaning, IT consultancy or film production. This is crazy because it becomes a serious argument for universal basic income. I am personally in two minds about UBI because I can see its pitfalls, but universal credit has proved itself so inflexible and become so much a stick to beat people on benefits rather than a support that it is time to be open to alternatives.
In addition to other arguments for UBI, most of which concern boosting demand, the Government could use such a scheme to underpin a growth shift to self-employment, allowing independent contractors to take risks. It becomes a mechanism for starting businesses as well. No one wants a crisis like Covid, but our recovery should improve the future, not return us to the past.

Baroness Boycott: My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the most reverend Primate for introducing it. Since the crisis began and the lockdown was enforced, extraordinary hardship has been suffered by many, in particular in relation to their food supply. According to research published this week by the Food Foundation—I declare my interest—5 million people in the UK are living in households with children under 18 and have experienced food insecurity. Shockingly, more than 200,000 children have had to skip meals because their parents do not have enough money. On top of this, 31% of kids who are entitled to free school meals—that is, half a million of them—are not getting substitutes. It was a terrific government idea to supply a £15-a-week voucher to make up for free school meals, but the delivery company that was chosen, Edenred, has been overwhelmed by demand and basically unable to meet it. That has meant a huge number of parents having no access to food.
Once again, it feels as though the Government have not stepped up to the problem of our food supply and its distribution. It has been left in the hands of the supermarkets—which have done really well—and the charity sector, which has played a blinder. We have heard from many other noble Lords about community initiatives and the way in which people have behaved towards their neighbours, which is heartening to see.
I dread to think of the physical and emotional impact on children when they finally return to school. We already know that a lack of good nutrition in the summer holidays can affect the poorest in our society and their academic achievements, and these can go on for life.
The Welsh Government have committed to supporting children through the coming summer holidays. Will our Government do the same? Will they please consider increasing support through the child benefit system, which is the one system that ensures that money gets directly to mothers and children regardless of whatever else might be going on in the family?

Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby on her moving maiden speech. I am grateful for all she does to champion the voices of children.
I want to thank Archbishop Sentamu for his leadership in consistently speaking up for racial and social justice. He champions work among young people, notably through the Archbishop of York Youth Trust. He inspires others to do the same.
The Covid-19 pandemic is a dividing experience through its unequal financial impact. The lowest-earning 10% are seven times more likely than high earners to work in a sector which has shut down. Archbishop Sentamu  champions the real living wage. In-work poverty is compounded by irregular working hours. Such unpredictability means that families cannot easily save to safeguard themselves from unexpected life events. Eighteen per cent of the north-east’s working population experience insecure work. Turn2us found that people on zero-hours contracts expect a £193 drop in monthly income. These workers often provide essential services such as cleaning and delivery, yet face great financial instability. Will Her Majesty’s Government promote Living Hours accreditation?
Under-25s are two and a half times as likely as other age groups to work in a sector which has now shut down; youth unemployment could rise to 2 million. Long-term unemployed young people go on to earn less and are more likely to be unemployed in the future. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to protect young people in the labour market from the detrimental impact of the coronavirus crisis?
This crisis highlights the need for a fairer all-round taxation system in which those on middle and higher incomes, of all ages, contribute more to paying the long-term costs. I hope, too, that we will explore a universal basic income system and not simply dismiss it.
Will Her Majesty’s Government do everything possible to create increased, sustainable income equality and thus create a more just society that looks more like the kingdom of God?

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to serve on the Rural Affairs Group of the Church of England. I take this opportunity to pay a personal tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who is both loved and revered in equal measure in York and North Yorkshire. He brings a very special, very vibrant presence and appears utterly humane at every opportunity. Two particular references come to mind: when he came to pray and preach for us at my invitation in Thirsk, Malton and Filey, and the comfort that he has shown to, among others, Joan, the mother of Claudia Lawrence, who has been missing from York for a number of years now.
The most reverend Primate is absolutely right to focus on inequalities at this time. Government does not usually employ people, except now, through the furlough scheme. I want to refer to the plight of small businesses and the self-employed—those who do employ people. Currently, the self-employed, especially tradesmen such as plumbers, electricians, hairdressers and cleaners, are really struggling. I would like to see them treated on the same basis as employed people at this time of emergency measures. Discrimination is also suffered by older workers, often volunteers, who are struggling for the hours and the recognition that they deserve, and some younger workers are finding it difficult at this time to get on to the employment ladder. Most of all, I make a plea for the Minister to look really closely at how zero-hour contracts can be justified; they must be addressed.
In conclusion, my plea to the Minister is that the length of the furlough scheme should match the length of the closure experienced by charities and businesses during the lockdown and that he will address, and  perhaps terminate once and for all, the practice of zero-hour contracts. We all wish the most reverend Primate a long, happy and busy retirement.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the most reverend Primate for securing this debate and for the wonderful way in which he introduced it. This is such an important subject. Many of your Lordships will have seen the front-page lead in last Saturday’s Guardian with the headline “UK’s corona divide”, and,
“People living in poorest areas dying at twice the rate of those in richest areas”.
This is based on new data from the Office for National Statistics.
In my two minutes, I want to draw attention to the part played by tobacco in contributing to these shocking figures. Smoking rates among people in routine and manual jobs are more than twice the national average. Among people who are unemployed, smoking prevalence rises further. Nationally, half the difference in life expectancy between rich and poor is due to higher smoking rates among those on low incomes. Smoking caused around 78,000 deaths in England last year and over 400,000 hospital admissions. Data from the UK Covid symptom tracker app shows that smokers are more likely to report Covid-19 symptoms, and smokers with the virus who need hospital care are more likely to die than non-smokers.
This should be a wake-up call. We must do more to improve population health and reduce health inequalities, not just respond in times of crisis. Investing in tobacco control and stop-smoking services to achieve the Government’s ambition of a smoke-free England by 2030 would reduce health inequalities, save lives and lift over a million people out of poverty. While tobacco addiction pushes smokers into poverty, the tobacco industry makes over £900 million in profits in the UK each year. A polluter-pays charge on the tobacco industry, as advocated by the APPG on Smoking and Health—I declare an interest as one of its officers—could provide sustainable financing for the tobacco control measures needed to deliver the Government’s smoke-free ambition and support the majority of smokers who want to quit to do so.

Baroness Tyler of Enfield: My Lords, in the short time available, it is simply not possible to go into any detail about the measurement of income inequality, which is a complex and contested area. Suffice it to say that, according to the OECD, the UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe, albeit lower than in the USA.
Of particular relevance to today’s debate, the Resolution Foundation has pointed out that while everyone is feeling the effects of Covid-19, the impact is not equally distributed. Indeed, workers in shut-down sectors such as hospitality and non-food retail are among the lowest paid in the workforce, earning less than half than those able to work from home. There are strong links too with wider social inequalities. Private renters, who already face a great deal of insecurity, are also  40% more likely to work in shut-down sectors than their homeowning counterparts. Key workers, particularly those in health and social care, are more likely to be parents. Indeed, almost 40% of working mothers were key workers before Covid-19 and are much more exposed to health risks. Most starkly, earners in the bottom half of the earnings distribution are twice as likely to be key workers and 2.4 times as likely to work in those shut-down sectors. These are our fellow citizens, who are bearing the economic brunt of the crisis.
From a well-being perspective, those who are most likely to be back at work in a reopened economy—those who may not have the option to work from home—are also those more likely to be on a lower income, at risk and in need of assistance; for example, with childcare. I join others in calling on the Government to start framing policy responses to Covid-19 through the lens of well-being, which can help expose the complex multifaceted problems that it presents and the policy trade-offs that will be needed. Inequalities, be they in income distribution, health or well-being more broadly, are erosive of trust and social cohesion—things that we need now more than ever. Policies such as improving job security as well as proposals for a universal basic income must surely come to the fore.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank my friend the most reverend Primate. We have a shared history as co-protagonists fighting racism in Tower Hamlets. He has been a vociferous advocate for all communities, particularly post 9/11, in addition to his seminal role in the Macpherson and Damilola Taylor inquiries.
The current health emergency is being felt hardest by families on low pay, people with disabilities, and women and children living with abuse; they are experiencing untold financial distress, often relying on community and charitable organisations for their daily sustenance. We are staggering through what is a bleak narrative by any decent standards, given that the geographical areas hardest hit by years of neglect, poverty and social injustice—namely, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney—are also now seeing disproportionate numbers of deaths compared with our cousin boroughs.
The inept political decision by decision-makers who cannot fathom the physical and mental impact of poverty has cast the shadow of universal credit and low pay on an entire generation of people already toiling with decades of structural inequalities, the most defenceless, and inflicted on them an unfair system leading to a fundamentally unequal divide. Yes, we have to balance the budget, but we must also strive for an equal and humane society.
The rainbow on the horizon, as many have said, is the Government’s rapid financial response to this emergency, which has proved that we can fund services in our uppermost priorities. We must ensure that the most vulnerable have their rightful place in contributing to a fairer and kinder society as we rethink the emerging economy post Covid-19.
Finally, I pay my respects to Colonel Tom Moore and Dabirul Islam Choudhury, both 100 years old—one raising millions of pounds; the other, inspired, raising  tens of thousands for a better tomorrow. I wish the most reverend Primate and his wife, Margaret, a peaceful retirement, but one not too distant from the House.

Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: My Lords, I too thank the most reverend Primate. This is the time to take bold action to tackle poverty and economic insecurity. A brutal light has been shone by the coronavirus on the underlying inequality in this country, where people in poor and deprived areas are twice as likely to die. Income insecurity, low pay, temporary work and poor housing have all taken their toll on health, as the recent Marmot report showed. A recovery of universal basic income must be the way forward as the country tries to emerge from this crisis. We need to begin to build a fairer, more resilient and good society and economy, as we did after the Second World War.
Welcome though the employment support schemes put in place by the Government are, they will soon come to an end without a further commitment to extend. With over 2 million people applying for universal credit in the last two months, delays in paying out cash mean that families have gone hungry. Now is the time to put in place a mechanism to distribute cash to everyone without delay, to provide an income floor that nobody falls below, and a springboard to recovery.
As the lockdown is eased, many sectors such as aviation and hospitality may never recover, and the jobs lost permanently will mean that people must be helped to retrain and reskill. Many are calling for temporary hardship schemes to cover the gaps that the self-employed must endure while they wait for funds, but a UBI would ensure no one had to rely on a food bank or face homelessness because of benefit sanctions or delays with universal credit. It would not replace wages but would instead help to boost them, especially for those front-line staff in the care sector, who have finally been recognised as key workers that society relies on to look after the most vulnerable.

Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, Covid has revealed further the underlying poverty in this country, as well as exacerbating the problem. There is no more obvious symptom of that poverty than food banks, demand for which was the greatest in 2019, before the health crisis started, so it is clear that when we look at current demand, it is considerably higher than it would have been without that base level.
Food banks are one of the biggest black marks against this country. It is self-evidently a social problem that a significant number of people cannot afford to put food on the table, because poverty itself is a social ill. It continues to surprise me how little food banks are raised as an urgent matter, perhaps because they have become too much an accepted part of the social landscape. Nevertheless, Philip Alston noted last year, as others have done, that they should not be a safety net. It is the Government’s job to provide at least that.
It is difficult to question the Government on this, since what we tend to hear about in reply is the public’s generosity and, since the health crisis, the departmental and charitable support for food banks—anything other than the current necessity for their existence. Can the  Minister say whether the Government intend to take steps to make food banks unnecessary? I plead for a focused reply.
If you pull at food banks, inevitably you pull at so much else. Social problems are largely treated separately and compartmentalised, even as the evidence of a link between poverty and social problems such as mental health and domestic violence builds up. Yet that remains largely unaddressed by the Government.
In 2016, a Joseph Rowntree report on poverty estimated costs to the public purse of £78 billion per year, including healthcare, social care, schools, policing and children’s services. This is money that for social and financial reasons should be spent at the very beginning of the process, either through welfare or, better still, through a universal basic income, to provide the decent standards of living that all citizens have a right to and to avoid many of the social problems to which poverty leads.

Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, the House is grateful to the most reverend Primate for this debate. It is timely because the Government are about to embark both on a spending review and a Budget which between them will shape the nation’s response to the pandemic, as well as setting out the Government’s response to the competing priorities we debate this afternoon.
On 12 March, the Prime Minister said, “I must level with the British public.” He was talking about the impact of the virus on the nation’s health. We now need the same frankness about its impact on the nation’s economy. Six months ago, a number of commitments were made in good faith by my party in its manifesto:
“We will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending … We promise not to raise the rates of income tax, National Insurance or VAT”,
and
“debt will be lower at the end of the Parliament”.
Those commitments are unsustainable, and we should say so now. In particular, leaving untouched the most progressive tax we have makes it impossible to respond to the compelling case made by the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
I have two practical suggestions. First, we should abolish the universal winter fuel allowance, and roll the savings of up to £3 billion into social care, which has had a raw deal in recent settlements.
Secondly, we should introduce at least one new council tax band on top of band H. In a recent report, the IFS described council tax as
“increasingly out of date and arbitrary, and highly regressive with respect to property values. It is ripe for reform.”
It is absurd that the most valuable properties pay only three times as much tax as the least valuable. Ideally, there should be a revaluation, but that will not happen. However, a new, higher band would make the tax more progressive and bring in more resources for local government.
Clarity on the manifesto; replacing an untargeted benefit with help for social care; and a more progressive local tax. Those are the building blocks towards the fairer society advocated by the most reverend Primate.

Lord Adonis: I strongly agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just said. The last Labour Government introduced one higher band in respect of council tax. The noble Lord’s pro1posal for another higher band and using the resources for social care should be taken forward.
I, too, join the tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. As a spiritual and a pastoral leader, he has touched the lives of many of us, and his international work has also been seminal. Most of us will never forget the way he took Mugabe to task—particularly Zimbabweans.
On the big issue of youth poverty that he has raised and what we do about it in the coronavirus crisis, I shall follow my noble friend Lord Boateng and make a few concrete suggestions. I shall just rattle through them almost like tweets as we have so little time.
First, as my noble friend said, we should revisit the two-child rule. This relates to families who are on benefits and it goes to the heart of poverty. It is completely unjustifiable, and it targets further poverty on the poor, which is the opposite of what we should be doing.
Secondly, everyone in the education world knows that there is a big crisis at the moment over the provision of free school meals, because the voucher system is not working and the meals are not being provided in schools. We need a quick and targeted fix for this. The best proposal I can come up with about what we should do immediately is to double child benefit—which is to some to extent targeted because it is taxed away for the better off—for the duration of the crisis so that families have the money they need for schools meals rather than complicated school meal vouchers.
Thirdly, we need to give people the right to repeat years in school, because a lot of young people are losing out on education at the moment.
Fourthly, we need to give people the right to do additional years of further education, because a lot of young people are going to be unemployed or will not get the results they need. That should be tied into an urgent review of apprenticeships and the right of people to study in FE if they cannot get apprenticeships because the numbers are falling.
Finally, on university fees, it is clearly unconscionable that students should have to pay fees for substandard courses from this October. The Government should have either a reduced fee or no fee for next year.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the most reverend Primate on bringing this debate to us this afternoon. I shall make two points, the first looking at the impact of Covid-19 on the economic patterns experienced by different groups of workers and the second looking at the implications further afield on reaching sustainable development goal 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions.
Everyone’s health is at risk from the virus, which is causing workers’ lives to be altered across the country, some more than others depending on the work that they do. I reinforce the words of my noble friend Lady Tyler. The Resolution Foundation has identified  four main groups of workers with similar experiences. Of these, key workers are the most exposed to harmful effects, as they are working in jobs where social distancing is very difficult. On the other hand, people working in shut-down sectors are most likely to be feeling the economic effects of the crisis. The other groups—those who can work from home and those who continue to go out to work—can continue with some sense of normality. Key workers and shut-down workers are suffering the most acute consequences, with lower-paid people, particularly the young and women, being the hardest hit. The virus does not discriminate between the rich and the poor, but the economic impact does. It is important for the Government to recognise the challenges and the sacrifices that some groups are more likely to be making than others.
Even before the devastating impact of Covid-19, only 18% of fragile states were on track to meet the sustainable development goal, and violence and conflict was on the rise. Mercy Corps will be debating this in a virtual discussion on 12 May—particularly the influence of weak governance, weak health systems and often significant displaced populations—in response to the virus. As Covid-19 spreads, the risk of violent conflict may increase, locally at first, and at multiple levels in the medium and long term.

Lord Singh of Wimbledon: My Lords, I thank my good friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for securing this important and timely debate. I offer him my best wishes in what will be, I am sure, a busy retirement.
Covid-19 has brutally made us aware that the severity and likelihood of infection discriminates against the poor and disproportionately affects black and minority-ethnic groups, and, importantly, their children. Lower-income groups are more likely to suffer from a poor, unbalanced diet, which can result in obesity, heart and lung diseases, and, particularly among those of Asian origin, diabetes and kidney and liver diseases, and can ultimately impact their mental health.
The global pandemic has made us focus on the need to urgently redress gross inequalities. Both Christianity and Sikhism lay great stress on concern for the poor and a fairer distribution of resources. But, in our selfish rush for material prosperity, at the expense of the needs of the disadvantaged, we have ignored the important ethical imperatives that are necessary for a socially and economically healthy society. The pandemic is a timely reminder that, as both our religions teach, life has both spiritual and material dimensions. I hope that the Government will take the lead in resetting the balance.

Lord Balfe: My Lords, I also congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on securing this debate. I draw attention to my interests in the register.
I must start by mentioning that a basic income, an idea which has come up from time to time, has been trialled in Finland, where the trial was abandoned. It would be good to look at why that was before we go too far.
I want to talk about what I see as the real scandal: the perception that those right at the top end of the economy do not need to pay much in the way of tax. I read in today’s Times, for instance, that Deloitte has 669 partners in Britain, who earned an average of £882,000 each last year. In another, quite separate story, I read that the boss of Ocado was paid £59 million last year, and that the finance chief and the chief operating officer, somewhat more humbly, got only £14 million each—of course, the business recorded a loss of £214.5 million. When people read these mind-boggling figures they wonder where, at the bottom end, they are going to exist.
I am pleased that, when I was chair of the finance committee of the Reform Club, I managed to bring in the London living wage. It is still paid there. However, we need to look at how we can benefit people at the bottom of the scale and how we can get fair tax out of the people in the middle. When people see Sir Philip Green flying in from Monaco, or Richard Branson on his island in the West Indies, they are rightly very cynical. My message is that we need to get together with people, and internationally, to tackle the tax havens and the many ways in which it is possible to hide or move income. It is not tax evasion; it is tax avoidance, by transferring money to the most beneficial regime. In the same way, some companies transfer their rights to Luxembourg, and thereby reduce the amount of tax that they have to pay in the UK.
I therefore ask the Government to look at ways of co-ordinating international action with the OECD, the European Union and others, to close the tax havens in the Channel Islands, Monaco, Panama, the Virgin Islands and the like. We really must start to tackle these abuses, which I believe underscore the way in which people see unfairness in society. If we are to have a fair division of income, we have to start tackling those people who believe that they are above income tax law.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, our record in the UK on income inequality and poverty is not very good. We have a higher level of income inequality than most European countries; 30% of children still live in relative poverty; and one in nine of the workforce has little or no job security. Covid-19 is making this worse, as many noble Lords have outlined.
However, this is not just about income inequality. Another inequality has been thrown into stark relief by Covid: the lack of the basic human right of access to green open space. The public have fully recognised that their physical and mental health depend hugely on being able to access green open spaces, the countryside and nature, yet 2 million homes do not have a garden. The most affluent areas in this country have five times more public green space per person than the most deprived areas.
A key part of the post-war settlement was a visionary programme to guarantee access to open space and nature in the form of our much-loved national parks system. I urge the Government to now follow that lead to ensure a fair and inclusive recovery that also delivers green equity—a nature recovery network both urban and rural to ensure that all our citizens have a right of access to green open space in the future.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, this crisis has made us reflect on what matters to us and on who matters to us—the people we love and cannot be with, but also the strangers on whose courage, compassion and service we as a country have depended literally for our survival. We frequently express our gratitude to these people in words. After this, we need to express it in deeds, in reality, in changes and in a fairer system of income and taxation. However, we also owe it to the generations that come after us to be fairer. When we rebuild our economy, we need to do so in a way that is sustainable. We need to look at a greener future, with an economy that does not pollute or endanger the future of the world in the same way.
Today, the Committee on Climate Change has written to the Prime Minister setting out six key principles for rebuilding an economy that is stronger, cleaner and more resilient for the future—not a hair-shirt economy but one from which we can benefit as a community. Will the Minister assure me today that those recommendations will be taken very seriously?

Lord Lucas: My Lords, this pandemic has hit the less well-off the hardest, both in terms of the mortality rates and in the suffering of those affected by the lockdown. In the depth of this crisis, we have an opportunity to sweep away vested interest and entrenched ways that have got in the way of fairness and simplicity and to come out of it with a system that is much better for the less well-off and much fairer for us as a society. As my noble friend Lord Balfe said, it is simply ridiculous that we should continue to allow people who earn vast sums of money to get away with not making a proper contribution to the national income, whether they be individuals, corporations such as Google or Chinese traders who avoid paying VAT.
The inefficiencies of the system, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, also need attention. There is a great opportunity here to make things better by taking advantage of the situation which we have, unfortunately, been presented with. I do not know whether the most reverend Primate’s suggestion of upping the living wage or of a universal basic income would work best, but something must be done to make sure that we no longer have a society in which a substantial number of people live below poverty levels. It simply will not do.

Lord Hendy: My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate for tabling this debate, and for citing in his opening remarks the speech of Sir Winston Churchill introducing the Trade Boards Act 1909. A wealth of academic research shows that greater even than the effect of progressive taxation and minimum wage legislation on diminishing inequality is the impact of extensive collective bargaining. That is what marks out the more egalitarian economies of Scandinavia.
From 1909, we had extensive collective bargaining in this country. By 1979, at the end of the most egalitarian decade in British history, when 65% of GDP was in the form of wages, 82% of British workers  were covered by a collective agreement. Today, collective bargaining coverage is less than 25%. Consequentially, the wage share of GDP has fallen to less than 50%. Workers have lost their collective voice in determining their terms and conditions, as the current crisis has emphasised.
I urge the Government to take a leaf out of Winston Churchill’s book and, in discussion with the TUC, CBI and experts, reintroduce compulsory sectoral collective bargaining as Churchill did in the Trade Boards Act 1909. The wages councils, as the trade boards were subsequently renamed, were abolished in 1993 and voluntary sectoral agreements terminated and undermined in both public and private spheres. To cope with the transformation needed after this crisis, we need to bring them back to life, as we did to deal with previous crises: after the First World War, in the 1930s after the crash, and during the Second World War.

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted: My Lords, income inequality is accompanied by a lack of security and inequalities in health and longevity. Keeping the poorest poor is not good value for society or the state. The financial crisis slightly levelled incomes but left millennials comparatively disadvantaged, and now they are the ones most likely to have younger children, hit by school closures and cut off from grandparental help.
Indices now show that inequality is back on the rise, and the pandemic has already created its own economic inequalities—those who can work and those who cannot, those qualifying for grants or furlough payments and those who are not, those who will have jobs to return to and those who will not.
In January, a World Economic Forum report indicated that increasing social mobility—a key driver of income inequality—could benefit the UK economy by $130 billion by 2030. Tell me a better way to help recovery.
We can use what we have learned in lockdown for good. The “new normal” should treasure the positives, keep them and reinforce them. Work from home has been enabled for so many more people—use that to enable a more sustainable work/life balance, cut transport, and open more jobs to the disabled, carers and other people who have not been given the chance to work entirely from home.
We can have a green recovery, a caring recovery, a better shared recovery—and find that it pays its way. Will the Government seize that opportunity?

Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, the CBI, of which I am vice-president, was engaged in a project on structural inequality in the UK last year, culminating in the report Structurally Unsound in 2019. It noted that being from an ethnic minority background and suffering health issues can compound the inequality that you suffer.
I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for his stellar service in his amazing career and I wish him a wonderful retirement. We shall miss him.
At the University of Birmingham, where I am chancellor, Karen Rowlingson, professor of social policy, mentioned that those with low incomes are more likely to suffer from Covid-19 and indeed, sadly, die from the virus. They are also more likely to see a negative impact on their incomes from lockdown than other groups in any recession that may come. If we can find ways to reduce income inequality, that will be crucial.
The City of Boston government has instituted a Covid-19 health inequities task force. Does the Minister think it might be a good idea for the UK Government to follow suit?
According to the IFS, after stripping out the role of age and geography, Bangladeshi hospital fatalities are twice those of the white British group, Pakistani deaths 2.9 times as high, and black African deaths 3.7 times as high. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned, key workers are at a higher risk of infection through the jobs that they do, and for carers the average wage is £8.19 an hour.
The Government have introduced a range of excellent measures—the job retention scheme, changing the rules for statutory sick pay, self-employment support—yet despite that almost 2 million people are now claiming universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance. This is only going to get worse.
In coming out of the lockdown, the process of opening up should be mindful of inequalities. Will the Minister let us know whether the furloughing will be phased out and part-time working allowed?
The director-general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, said that when coming out of the lockdown perhaps most important of all is building back better. However difficult, the crisis has afforded us the chance to be radical. Tackling inequality must be paramount.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, we are grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for this debate. This crisis has demonstrated why it is more critical than ever to work with policymakers, educators and employers to make sure that we put the sustainable building blocks in place to enable economic mobility as well as ensure that the safety nets required for those who need the state to intervene are properly protected.
Many are facing incredibly difficult and uncertain times. The lives of poor working families were already stretched to provide and they were just managing before the crisis. They are now incredibly bleak. There is plenty of evidence available showing that life outcomes are hugely dependent on the tools that enable you to develop, the environment in which you are born, and access to nutrition and education.
These past weeks have seen the best in communities stepping up and helping others, and I hope that will not be lost in the months that follow when we slowly return to a form of normal. However, the solutions must go beyond depending on communities stepping up. Policymakers must work on how the cycles of long-term poverty can be broken. This deeply complex question requires not just short-term financial interventions but a rethink of what community and society mean. How do local businesses once again step  up to work with educational institutions, and how do local authorities, with the extra funding that they have received during the crisis, demonstrate sustainable co-ordinated neighbourhoods?
During the last few weeks we have seen price hikes on many products, and no doubt we will see many more. What work is being done with companies, banks and retailers to ensure that already indebted people do not face further financial uncertainty as they try to manage a return to normality? Will my noble friend ensure that help and support is available that is accessible to everyone?

Lord Monks: My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I wish the most reverend Primate very well for the future and thank him for his outstanding service to date.
Inequality has widened since the 1980s. Some have argued that it has been inevitable, but it is not. There are other reasons, but it is in part a result of the decline of collective bargaining, as my noble friend Lord Hendy argued. Collective bargaining needs a boost; Stanley Baldwin did it in the 1920s and 1930s. That would do quite a lot to end the self-servicing ethos that lurks in the corners of too many boardrooms.
We know that more equal societies do better on a range of issues, including education and health, to pick out two. They are also doing better with the virus, which is disproportionately affecting the UK’s poor, as others have argued. This must not be repeated in the post-Covid world. We have a chance to do something about that.
I have a couple of questions. Will the Government agree to the TUC proposal to establish a national economic and social council to forge a national strategy on equality and recovery in a way that is fair to all sections of the community? Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Wood suggested, will the Government consider a one-off solidarity tax, including on wealth, to fund job creation and the NHS, and perhaps even bite into some of the debts that we have recently been running up at a tremendous rate?
This week, as we commemorate the spirit of VE Day, can we recover that kind of spirit as we go forward to tackle our problems and let the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest burden?

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I too thank the most reverend Primate for initiating this important debate. In doing so, I wish him well in his retirement years and thank him for his service to both this House and the country.
Inequality has risen steeply since the 1980s. The Covid-19 virus appears to have the heaviest impact on the lives of people living in deprivation or facing difficult socioeconomic circumstances. Those working in retail, industrial jobs, transport or tourism—as it mainly is in my area—are far less likely to have working from home as an option. Indeed, Richmondshire, the district in which I live, has been found to be the most at-risk area in England, with a prediction of 35% of jobs likely to be affected by a prolonged shutdown.  We are a tourism-reliant area. No tourists and no money circulating in the local economy equals no jobs. The predicted 15% unemployment that we will sustain will have a devastating economic impact on us. We have outstanding assets in our county, but we also have great need: in our skills gap, which needs improving; in our low-wage economy; and in our poor connectivity with many of our deeply rural and coastal areas, which rely on better broadband. I do not have time to mention poor public transport or the need to invest more in education and encourage apprenticeships.
We will need a new, sustainable economic strategy. We must never again assume that we are safe from a pandemic virus, so we must ensure income protection for everyone now. If we did not appreciate it before, we now know the importance of key workers in all our communities. A universal basic level of income, funded by the state, must now be considered, with proper support for those with disabilities or frailties. Investing in low-carbon technologies, small-scale renewables, energy and fuel efficiency is now a matter of urgency. We as a country have some very difficult decisions to make. Let us hope that we make the right ones.

Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for securing this debate.
My focus this afternoon is on ethnic minorities. Stark analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies illustrates the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on ethnic minorities and warns that some ethnic groups look more likely to suffer economically from the lockdown. The harsh realities of long and entrenched inequalities faced by ethnic minorities are all too evident. Ethnic minorities are more likely to be in insecure and low-paid work and are more likely to be unemployed. Ethnic minority staff in the health service are more likely to be on the front line, less likely to progress at work and more likely to be disciplined. All these factors put them at greater risk. While genetics and so-called cultural factors have been mooted as possible reasons, they must not mask the fact that persistent and long-standing social and economic inequalities lead to poor health outcomes and that racial discrimination is a factor.
A study last year by the Centre of Social Investigation at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, found shocking racial discrimination in the labour market at levels unchanged since the late 1960s. The Runnymede Trust’s latest report, The Colour of Money, shows that racial discrimination, like poverty, is a determinant of economic inequality. Runnymede’s other report, The State of the Nation, paints a very grim picture of disparities.
As a former director of the Runnymede Trust, some 36 years ago, it pains me to say that after nearly four decades the situation is not much better. For too long we have neglected to tackle discrimination and unfair institutional practices. In the last decade we have focused more on cultural factors and promotion of diversity, and not enough on racial discrimination and economic inequalities. This is not a binary choice. If we neglect racial discrimination and economic inequalities, disparities will persist. Building a resilient and sustainable society will remain a dream.
Deep-rooted problems require not just talk but strong action and policies pursued with determination and conviction. Can the Minister please tell the House what action the Government are planning to tackle persistent racial discrimination and consequent economic inequalities, which have been laid bare by this pandemic?

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I too thank the most reverend Primate and wish him well for his retirement. Of course, income is not the only determinant of individual well-being and there will always be richer and poorer in every society, but a vital social and moral issue for the aftermath of this crisis is to see a greater contribution from the better-off to help lower-income groups and alleviate poverty. I will focus on three issues: the role of monetary policy, debt and fiscal policy in addressing income inequality.
Monetary policy’s quantitative easing boosted the assets of wealthiest groups and asset owners while increasing housing costs for the less well-off and younger citizens. As a result, households have taken on extra debt for life’s essentials, thus exacerbating income and wealth inequality.
Rising debt levels were based on expectations of ongoing employment that have been frustrated by the crisis. Will my noble friend the Minister ask his department to look into ways in which the socially damaging side-effects of QE can be mitigated by policies to redistribute wealth and income windfalls?
The crisis will see millions more people relying on state support. This requires not simply increased tax rates but a wider tax base. The offshore-based entities that have made massive windfall profits during this crisis—from so much business moving online, for example—must pay a fair share of the support for our population. Taxation of turnover in UK markets, rather than profits that can be moved outside this jurisdiction, and more progressive property taxation—as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—are just two examples. I hope that this crisis will lead us to a more equal society.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I join others in wishing the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York a happy and very well-deserved retirement. I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the voice of affordable housing in England.
People need good, affordable homes to sustain greater income equality. The ONS has shown that income inequality is increasing. A significant factor is the cost of living, along with income instability and insecurity. Housing costs are a substantial proportion of living costs, sometimes more than 50% of monthly income if you rent in the private sector.
Even prior to the crisis, many individuals and families across the UK had always struggled to meet everyday living costs. With thousands of people losing their jobs as a result of the pandemic, this situation will get worse. The Government have introduced a job retention scheme and increases to universal credit to provide much-needed support, and I welcome these, but some  gaps remain in helping people meet their housing costs. The uplift in universal credit or the local housing allowance will have no effect on some families already claiming benefits, because they are caught by the house- hold benefit cap. It is an arbitrary cap that further undermines families who are already struggling, with schools closed and no childcare to allow them to start work. Parents—particularly single parents—are struggling to get jobs. Will the Minister consider the need to suspend the housing benefit cap? Can he tell us what monitoring the Government are doing and how families affected by the cap are coping during this crisis?
As we rebuild from this pandemic, investment in affordable and social housing would not only reduce the cost of living for many more families in low-paid and unstable work but enable the Government to move away from subsidising unaffordable rents with the welfare system.
The ability of many families to bounce back quickly from this crisis will depend on the changes we make now to reduce the amount people spend on one of life’s basic necessities: somewhere safe and secure to live. Can the Government say whether they will take the first step by significantly investing in affordable housing?

Baroness Featherstone: My Lords, I hope that everyone now sees that we need to introduce policies that better balance what is good for “me” with what is best for “us”—the aspiration for the common good as opposed to only individual advancement. The cynic in me thinks it will not be a nanosecond before people forget their gratitude to those on the front line—before they vote for a party that offers tax cuts rather than tax rises to pay those in care homes and other front-line jobs a better rate of pay.
It is both the Government and we the people who need to change: we shop on credit, we drink, we numb ourselves by sitting in front of one screen or another. Church attendance is dropping and teachers’ authority is diminishing. We have had the scandal of MPs’ expenses, banks defrauding us, the Catholic Church and paedophiles, and sportspeople cheating. The media feed the frenzy of this downward spiral, cataloguing the cataclysm. Governments lie and cheat. This really has been a decline and fall.
We should be looking at policies to reduce stress and inequality, with less emphasis on status and more on co-operation and friendship. Status is based on pecking order, coercion and privileged access to scarce resources, while friendship is based on a more egalitarian basis of social obligations and reciprocity.
In the grand sweep of policy, there are obviously big picture items—tackling poverty, reducing social exclusion, increasing income equality, cutting crime, building more homes and saving our planet with radical action, individually and with policies. We all—Governments and the people—have a responsibility for behaviour change. This is social liberalism.

Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick: My Lords, we are most grateful to the most reverend Primate for his tremendous life example. I wish him well in the future.  This is also a moment to be grateful for the welfare state, for the furlough support scheme, for food banks and the support of good neighbours—grateful for an infrastructure that protects people from the worst extremes.
I will focus on one particular area: the absence of savings among people in the United Kingdom. According to information received, savings levels are roughly half what they were 10 years ago. People on average are saving less every year than they might have done previously. Some 53% of those aged between 18 and 35 have no savings at all, and for the average person in the population, one in three has savings of less than £1,500. When a big crisis hits, such as coronavirus, people have little to fall back on. We have developed not a savings culture, but a capital expenditure culture and a commercial culture.
I have benefited from the experience of being an ambassador for Tearfund. Just a year ago, I went to see how 400,000 women in Ethiopia had saved nearly $30 million between them by putting their 2ps together. That is like the Grameen Bank model. It is now working in New York; it could work in London. What will the Government do to encourage saving clubs along the pattern of the Grameen Bank? It is successful in Bangladesh and in the USA; it could be successful in the UK. Also, what will the Government do to develop a savings culture so that people can better protect themselves, even with the little they have, as long as they also look to dependency on the state, quite rightly, and the support of good neighbours?

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the most reverend Primate for his service to the House and to the country. His excellent speech caps a career spent campaigning for greater equality in income, notably the living wage. His time has surely come. I declare an interest as a former chair of StepChange, a debt charity, and I would like to make two points.
First, we are seeing a welcome attempt by the Government to mitigate the supply shock being caused by Covid-19. Keeping sufficient liquidity in the economy to ensure that companies can survive and hold jobs open is crucial. But as the IPPR reported today, once the immediate crisis is over, the economy will be scarred and we will need a broad-based stimulus to drive up demand, reduce risk and support the creation of high quality jobs—particularly, as other noble Lords have said, for young people about to enter the job market. Can the Minister confirm that plans for this are under way?
Secondly, the figures show that the Government need most urgently to support the debt charities that are working with those who are suffering because of unmanageable debt. ONS figures show that 8.6 million people have experienced reduced income as a result of the coronavirus crisis, while Citizens Advice has reported that over 13 million people have already been unable to pay or expect to miss at least one bill, and there has been an 81% increase in the use of food banks.
The Government should lead by example by taking measures to reduce the impact on households which are falling behind on bills. These could include bringing  forward the statutory breathing space, temporarily suspending the rule that people become liable for their full council tax bill if they miss one payment, temporarily halting all bailiff activity and agreeing with the proposal from Citizens Advice for better protection for renters.

Baroness Pitkeathley: With apologies for the difficulty in hearing the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Janke.

Baroness Janke: My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate for securing this important debate today which provides an opportunity to highlight the growing inequality of income and subsequent disadvantage to many people, as he has done for so long throughout his career. It is shocking for British people to learn that in the 21st century, 14 million people are living in poverty and 4 million of them are children. I also pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for her eloquent speech and the points she made from her experience of working with and protecting children.
It is well documented that policies over the recent years have not furthered the cause of equality—rather, they have widened the gap between the rich and the poor, as the most reverend Primate said in his speech. For most disadvantaged people, there has been a systematic reduction in, and removal of, vital services and rights, as so many noble Lords have said. With the massive and unprecedented cuts to local authorities, vital services have virtually disappeared, services on which the poor depend. Changes to benefits have removed any effective safety net for those who experience catastrophic events. The UK has the fifth largest economy in the world and is a leading centre of global finance, yet one-fifth of the population—14 million people—are living in poverty, with 4 million of them below the poverty line. The current pandemic emergency has laid bare the shocking shortfalls in our woefully inadequate social safety net.
We have heard from noble Lords today about the importance of tackling these issues, and the post-Covid recovery is going to be of crucial importance to the least well off in this country. We have heard about the importance of social insurance based on progressive taxation, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. This would give rise to a new society that would spring up, as the most reverend Primate has said. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, highlighted the potential for massive unemployment and the need for a form of job guarantee scheme, while my noble friends Lady Kramer and Lord Bruce talked about the minimum basic income policy. My noble friend Lady Randerson highlighted the importance of investment in education and infrastructure, as well as the importance of supporting charities on which so many depend, a key point made by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
We have also heard about the need to learn from the emergency, particularly from the care and kindness shown by people in our own communities and from the values of empathy and service that have been shown. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the  noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, highlighted this. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of the importance of affirming the dignity and worth of all. The noble Baroness, Lady Healy, highlighted the fact that key workers, often in low-paid and insecure jobs, are of vital importance, and spoke of the need for an income floor.
I also want to highlight the issue of health and the impact of poverty on health. The Marmot report produced in February this year—

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, we seem to be having connection problems with the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. I call the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I too thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for introducing this debate and for his service to the country and the House of Lords. I also welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby—my hometown—and look forward to her future contributions after such a good maiden speech.
It has been an interesting debate, wide-ranging and touching on many points. I will try to give a personal perspective on inequality, which is about so much more than income. When I was young—I was born in 1943—we were poor. But my father had secure employment as a porter in the National Health Service. We had a council house, with security of tenure. We had controlled rents. In summary, we lived poor but in no fear. Today’s working poor are the very opposite. They have low incomes, employment insecurity, housing insecurity—frequently because they do not have security of tenure—and escalating housing costs in the private sector. They have lived over the last 10 years with declining public services on which they disproportionately depend.
The working poor live in fear, a fear that most of us in this House—there may be exceptions—cannot begin to imagine. When things go wrong, they go very wrong. If people are in the wrong part of the economy—including large parts of the care and hospitality sectors—when things go wrong, as Covid has illustrated, they go catastrophically wrong.
However, there are other features of inequality which we must not ignore. The most obvious of these is the inequality of capital and asset wealth. This is where housing, for some, instead of being a problem, is the opposite. My own house is probably now worth, in real terms, two or three times what I paid for it, without anything having been done by me to contribute to that appreciation. Housing ownership exacerbates inequality in a number of ways, including in retirement. The working poor are likely still to be in insecure rented accommodation when they retire; the affluent will by then almost always own their own house and their retirement will therefore be that much more comfortable. The inequality of capital wealth flows through to subsequent generations through inheritance. We must not forget also that there are inequalities through responsibility, where carers look after their young and old, as well as inequalities in standards of work and in relation to work satisfaction.
Poverty is wrong. Poverty in all its forms is unfair and uncaring. It creates a society that is unfair and uncaring. This is in income, housing, security and fear. In my experience, high pay is unnecessary. Most high pay depends on bonuses. Bonuses pervert behaviour and we know that we get some pretty perverted behaviour as a result of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, noted.
The economic and social effects of Covid-19 will take many years to run through. Instead of seeing these as a threat, we must see them as an opportunity—as some have said, a Beveridge moment. We must try to get a better understanding of our society and of inequality and its effects. I believe that a better understanding will lead us to a more equal society, a society more at ease with itself, with a more holistic understanding of value, not simply of wealth.

Lord Agnew of Oulton: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on his valedictory speech in this House. I echo the many tributes to him that we have heard today. We thank him for 15 years of service as the Archbishop of York and recognise his valuable work across his career, speaking out against authoritarian regimes and championing diversity, the environment and a range of social causes. I know noble Lords will join me in wishing him a very happy and well-earned retirement from his office. I draw particular attention to his work as chair of the Living Wage Commission, where he has rightly championed the need to end low pay, an ambition this Government share. In this role, in his career and today in this House, the most reverend Primate has chosen to highlight the important issue of inequality in our society.
Because of the limited time available and the large number of speakers, I may not be able to address each individual’s points, but I hope to cover the bulk of the issues. I shall begin with income inequality, the main subject of the debate. The Government take inequality very seriously. We are committed to improving the living standards of all in our society. I am pleased to report that in the latest data available, income inequality was lower than it was in 2010. However, it is striking how little overall inequality has changed over the past 20 years, given the efforts of all Governments—Conservative, Labour and coalition. This shows just what a challenge it is to shift. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that, whatever the overall statistics on inequality tell us, as noble Lords have highlighted, there are clearly groups in our society struggling to make ends meet.
It is right to consider how government policy as a whole impacts upon people’s lives and incomes. While the world has changed dramatically since the Spring Budget, Treasury modelling published at that time demonstrated that this Government are supporting the poorest in our society, showing that the poorest 60% of households receive more in public spending than they contribute in tax. For pensioners, the absolute poverty rate has fallen since 2010. It is also right that those with the broadest shoulders in society take their fair share of the burden. The top 1% of taxpayers are  estimated to have paid over 29% of all income tax in 2018-19. Their contribution has increased since 2010-11, when it was 25% of the overall burden. I respectfully point out to noble Lords that the money has to come from somewhere, and they are doing their bit.
We know that work is key to improving people’s living standards and quality of life, providing more than just financial rewards—a sense of social glue, connection, well-being and aspiration. The Government have a strong track record on work, with the statistics for the three months to February 2020 showing a record high employment rate. Of course, we have seen significant events unfold since February, and I will turn shortly to the action the Government have taken to protect jobs in recent months. I reassure the most reverend Primate that work continues, and we have set an ambitious target for the national living wage, building on the progress so far. Supported by the national living wage, the lowest paid, defined here as full-time workers in the fifth percentile, saw their wages grow by 11% above inflation between April 2015 and April 2019. This is higher than at any point across the earnings distribution.
The Government have also confirmed an ambitious target for the national living wage to reach two-thirds of median earnings by 2024, if economic conditions allow. Since the national living wage was introduced in 2016, it has delivered the fastest pay rise for the lowest paid in 20 years. I accept that this may not go far enough for some noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Boateng and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—who would like to see a universal basic income, but I believe that this is solid progress.
For those who need it, the welfare system provides a strong safety net. Before the current response to Covid-19, the Government were continuing to spend more than £220 billion on the benefits system, including an additional £1.7 billion a year on universal credit, increasing by £1,000 the amount that 2.4 million households could earn each year before their universal credit begins to be tapered.
Coronavirus has been one of the biggest crises that this country has faced in 80 years. The latest figures show that over 29,000 people have tragically died in the UK. At this time, the Government are rightly focused on saving lives. Our science-led action plan aims to slow the spread of coronavirus so that fewer people need hospital treatment at any one time, protecting the NHS’s ability to cope. That is why the Government have announced unprecedented support for public services, individuals and businesses to protect against the current economic emergency. We will protect, as far as possible, people’s jobs and incomes. In 2018-19, income inequality was lower than in 2009-10. In 2020-21, households in the lowest income decile will receive more than £4 in public spending for every £1 they pay in tax.
We are ensuring that the public sector has the funds it needs. The coronavirus emergency response fund will provide more than £14 billion to public services, including the NHS and local authorities. This builds on the £5 billion fund announced at the Budget and includes nearly £2 billion for the devolved Administrations. On top of this, we have announced a package to help individuals affected by the crisis. This includes the  Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to help firms  keep millions of people in employment. As at 3 May, 800,000 employers had claimed £8 billion to help protect 6.3 million furloughed jobs. To support those on low incomes through the outbreak, we have also announced a package of temporary welfare measures. This includes a £20 per week increase to the universal credit standard allowance and working tax credit basic element. We have increased the local housing allowance rate so that it covers the cheapest third of all local rents, and we have extended statutory sick pay to self-isolators and those in their households.
We know that, for some, this period will be more difficult than for others. We are making every effort to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. Our shielding package is in place to safeguard over 2 million people in England with the most serious under- lying health conditions. To answer my noble friend Lord Caithness, we have provided assistance to some 325,000 people, who have received predominantly food supplies in the last seven days. On the broader question of whether a trade deal will reduce the quality of food coming into this country, there has to be a balance between keeping food affordable for people such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, to ensure that they are able to eat healthily, while not undermining in any way the quality of the food we eat.
We have worked with local authorities and homelessness charities to offer safe accommodation to over 90% of rough sleepers, either on the streets or in communal shelters, who were known to local authorities at the start of this crisis. In addition to the wider package of support for English local authorities, we have provided £3.2 million specifically to meet the cost of accommodating rough sleepers with Covid-19 who needed to self-isolate. This is on top of the £492 million already committed to address homelessness and rough sleeping in 2020-21. Public Health England has also published guidance for those working in hostels and day centres. We absolutely understand that local authorities are under considerable pressure, both to continue providing essential services and to respond to the challenges of Covid-19 during these difficult times. This is why we have provided an additional £3.2 billion for local authorities, as well as further measures to aid their cash flow.
Now, more than ever, charities and those who work and volunteer for them are providing essential services to support the most vulnerable. We are supporting them with a £750 million package, including funding for hospices, St John Ambulance, Citizens Advice and charities supporting vulnerable children, victims of domestic abuse and disabled people. As well as this, the Government have pledged to match whatever the public donate to the BBC’s “Big Night In” campaign with the same amount to support further charities.
I will now try to pick up on the individual points raised by noble Lords. To save time, I will not mention everyone by name. A number of noble Lords asked about furlough extensions. I can confirm that the Chancellor has made it clear that there will be no cliff edge to the job retention scheme. The Government are working at pace to come up with the most effective way to wind down the scheme and ease people back into work in a measured way. We will ensure that  the approach is coherent, with any necessary non-pharmaceutical interventions to protect public health, while considering the status of the economy, the scheme’s affordability and the need for certainty for employers and employees.
A number of noble Lords asked about rents and protection for tenants, particularly vulnerable ones. The Coronavirus Act required that landlords would be unable to start proceedings to evict tenants for at least a three-month period. We have targeted support at lower-income households to provide financial support to pay rent. Universal credit provides support for housing costs; we have increased the amount available to ensure that the lowest third of local rents will be covered in full.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about the longer term and restoring a fiscal balance to the economy. As he will know, we have spent the last 10 years bringing borrowing and debt under control. This has ensured that our finances were well placed to deal with some of this crisis. We expect the spike in borrowing to be temporary; under the OBR scenario, borrowing is expected to fall back reasonably quickly in 2021-22 as temporary policy costs end and the economy starts to recover. By the end of the scenario horizon, the OBR expects borrowing to have returned to close to the Budget forecast.
The Government are currently considering options to fund social care, which would consider the financial impact on taxpayers as a whole, along with competing demands on taxpayers’ money from other public services and how to fund reform on a sustainable balance. All views, solutions and concerns are being considered as part of that process; we are absolutely looking at the longer term.
The most reverend Primate asked about the real living wage. As I have mentioned, low-paid workers will benefit from the April 2020 increase in the national living wage. That represents an increase of over £930 for the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage, equivalent to a total increase in annual earnings of more than £3,600 since its introduction in April 2016. The Government have also confirmed their target to push on, as I mentioned earlier, to reach two-thirds of median earnings by 2024 as long as economic conditions are secure. The Government are responsible for setting the legal minimum wage floors, which protect vulnerable low-paid workers. We commend employers who pay more when they can afford to do so. The Living Wage Foundation is clear that its measure is voluntary.
Regarding pay rises for key workers, they deserve to be properly rewarded for the work that they do. Last July the Government delivered a second year of above-inflation pay rises for almost 1 million public sector workers, in addition to the previously agreed multiyear pay deal for NHS non-medical staff, including nurses. More than 1 million NHS workers continue to benefit from the three-year “Agenda for change” pay deal. The reforms will see the starting salary for a newly qualified nurse rise to £24,900 in 2020-21, 12.5% higher than in 2017-18. The Government have also agreed temporary pay and pension packages for a number of  public sector workforces, including the NHS, to increase system capacity and recognise their work tackling the Covid-19 outbreak.
We are determined to do everything we can to ensure that our social care workforce is safe, supported and truly valued. Supporting our workforce is one of the four pillars of our core action plan, published on 15 April. In March we provided local authorities with £1.6 billion of emergency funding which could be used to pay for additional costs we knew the sector would face. In April we announced a further £1.6 billion of emergency funding for local authorities.
A number of noble Lords raised universal basic income—UBI. There are, of course, fundamental problems with the realities of UBI. A flat rate of UBI would not take into account people’s circumstances and the additional needs and costs faced by some individuals. Therefore, it would not target support where it was most needed. The Government have therefore announced alternative measures to support people’s jobs and incomes, which can be delivered relatively quickly and effectively through existing benefits. At a time when the DWP and HMRC are experiencing unprecedented demand, the Government have to prioritise the safety and stability of the existing benefit and tax system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, raised sustainable public housing. The only way to stabilise and improve affordability over the long term is to build more houses in the right places. That is why this Government are committed to building at least 1 million more homes by the end of this Parliament, continuing the progress towards our target of delivering 300,000 additional homes a year, on average, by the mid-2020s. More than 241,000 additional homes were delivered in 2018-19, the highest level in the last 32 years, representing a 66% increase since 2009-10. Since 2010 we have increased housing supply by more than 1.5 million, including 460,000 affordable homes. We have helped more than 600,000 additional households purchase a home since spring 2010 through government-backed schemes, including Help to Buy and the right to buy.
Noble Lords raised free school meals. The Government are committed to ensuring that children who receive free school meals do not miss out. We have asked schools to work with their existing catering providers to continue to offer free school meals. Demand has been extremely high, but they are reaching families and we continue to work with our suppliers to improve the service. We thank schools, which we know are doing their best for parents and children while the system is upgraded. It is also worth pointing out that while we considered initially that a 20% occupancy of schools would be safe and reasonable during the crisis, we are seeing less than 2%, so there is the opportunity for more children to be in school, particularly children who are vulnerable, who were considered a priority area, along with the children of key workers, at the time.
Noble Lords raised child poverty and benefits. The Government’s official statistics on poverty for 2018-19 show that there was little change in overarching poverty rates between 2017-18 and 2018-19. Child poverty rates fell before housing costs, and the relative child poverty rate reduced by 2 percentage points and the  absolute rate by 1 percentage point. Since 2010 there are 100,000 fewer children living in absolute poverty and the absolute child poverty rate has fallen by 2%.
On progressive taxation, as I said earlier, the top 1% of taxpayers are estimated to have paid over 29% of income tax in 2018-19. The poorest 60% of households receive more in public spending than they contribute in tax. The Government have already taken steps to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden, including reforming dividend taxation, reducing the amount of tax relief on pension savings that an individual can accumulate over their lifetime, and ending permanent non-domiciled status.
Between 2010 and 2015 we took 4 million people out of income tax altogether. Around 1.7 million people have been taken out of tax between 2015-16 and 2019-20. We cannot add those two figures together because one uses the RPI and the other the CPI, but it gives an indication of the work we have done and the priority we have focused on some of the lowest paid. The income tax personal allowance was £6,475 in 2010-11. That is rising to £12,500 in 2021. The basic rate—the lowest rate of income tax—was 20% in 2010 and has remained stable but it is now applying to fewer people.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the environment. The Government continue to take our environmental responsibilities very seriously and are committed to meeting climate change and wider environmental targets. The Budget reinforced the UK’s strong track record in this area. Announcements included £640 million for tree planting and peatland restoration, over £1 billion for further support for ultra-low emission vehicles, at least doubling funding for energy innovation and tax measures to encourage greater energy efficiency and reduce plastic waste.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury asked about support for migrants. We are facing a rapidly evolving and unprecedented global health emergency and the Government are committed to doing whatever it takes to support people through this. We have announced a range of measures to ensure that people can stay safe and many of these are available to those with a no recourse to public funds condition, such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, protections from eviction for renters and a mortgage holiday for those who need it. Statutory sick pay and some contributory-based benefits are not classed as public funds, so are also available to all. Local authorities may also provide basic safety net support if it is established that there is a genuine care need that does not arise solely from destitution, for example when there are community care needs.
I am running out of time, but what I have tried to illustrate is that we are making a lot of interventions to support people, in particular the most vulnerable in society. The range of contributions we have heard today demonstrates what a broad and complex issue this is. I have highlighted some of our actions. I will finish by thanking noble Lords for their contributions, and especially the most reverend Primate for securing this valuable debate. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in once again giving him our very best wishes ahead of his forthcoming retirement.

Archbishop of York: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their wonderful contributions to this debate. My time does not allow me to thank everybody, but all noble Lords gave wonderful, amazing contributions. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. It was a great pleasure for me to hear her maiden speech, having consecrated her as the first woman bishop and having introduced her into your Lordships’ House. I thank her very much for her wonderful contribution.
I would have loved to hear the Minister respond to the three suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, particularly the question of a new tax band above band H to increase the income for local authorities. That was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. The debate has been very clear that we have to do something about inequality in terms of many people’s income. It really requires a new way of looking at this and a new way of thinking carefully through what we are trying to do with the poor. In the end, they often end up with a double whammy and pay much higher costs for their well-being. Again, it is true—the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, gave a wonderful explanation of what often happens—that the poor tend to end up paying much. According to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, all of us really depend on one another and because of this, some of us can have much while others have very little.
I welcome the way the debate has gone. I just hope that we will be able to hear what has been said and then try to take some action, rather than leaving it and seeing what shape the future takes. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will soon come to a close, but I want to say that everything that has been said is important and I hope the Government will take it seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, called himself a Beveridge supporter and this a Beveridge moment. I remind your Lordships’ House that Beveridge said there were five giants: want, the need for an adequate income for all; disease, the need for access to healthcare; ignorance, the need for access to educational opportunities; squalor, the need for adequate housing; and idleness, the need for gainful employment. That is what he was calling for. As I see it, we need to be the sort of community that is moving forward with wonderful conviction and commitment to one another. We need to find a mechanism that some noble Lords called for.
As I see it, the debate was not about welfare alone but about well-being and a flourishing society founded on the principles of freedom, fellowship, service to God and neighbour and the rule of law. For me, these are the real firm foundations on which we can build a just, sustainable and compassionate society in which all can participate and flourish. For me, anything else is just sand. For the flourishing of a just and equitable society, the gap between those living in poverty and wealth must be reduced. Why is there a case for increasing income equality? In the light of the recent heath emergency, it is simply because it is a matter of justice, kindness and generosity. It is the right thing to do, and it is also desirable.
I love the wonderful story a rabbi told about his students who asked him, “When do you know light has come and night has ended?” They asked him, “Is it when you look at a tree and you see it is an apple tree and not a mango tree?” “No”, said the rabbi. “Is it when you can look in the distance and see that it is a sheep and not a dog?”. “No”, said the rabbi. Then they pressed him. “When do you know that light has come?”. He said, “If you look at the face of any woman or man and cannot see that they are your sister or your brother, it does not matter what time it is, it is still very night”. So today, may the day dawn when we deal with the whole question of the environment and an income that will sustain and support all our people.
I thank noble Lords for listening. I am looking forward to seeing the Government taking action on the many calls and concerns in the debate. It has been a real privilege to be part of it and make a contribution.
Motion agreed.
Virtual Proceeding suspended.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

The announcement was made in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Baroness Henig: My Lords, Virtual Proceedings on the debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will now commence. This is a time-limited debate, and I know that Members will strictly observe the three-minute time limit. I will first call the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, in the usual way, the question will then be put, and I will then call each speaker on the list in turn. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to speaking and returned to mute once their speech has finished.

Windrush Compensation Scheme
 - Motion to Consider

Baroness Williams of Trafford: Moved by Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Virtual Proceedings do consider the Windrush Compensation Scheme.
The Motion was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I am grateful to be able to return and have a full debate on the Windrush compensation scheme. I know that many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Hamwee, were unable to participate at Second Reading of the Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill on 21 April. I hope that today’s virtual debate gives them, and other noble Lords who wish to speak on this matter, the occasion to do so.
I hope that noble Lords will have received my letter of 30 April providing an update on the Windrush compensation scheme. As we discussed this matter two weeks ago, I will keep my opening remarks to a few important points to give noble Lords a chance to participate in this time-limited debate.
I place on record again the Government’s commitment to ensuring that members of the Windrush generation are properly compensated for the losses and impacts they suffered as a result of being unable to demonstrate their lawful status. That is why, in April 2019, we launched the Windrush compensation scheme, with the first payment made within four months of its operation. I take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that there is no cap on the amount of compensation an individual can receive, nor a cap on the total amount of compensation that we will pay out.
We are doing all we can to make payments to individuals as quickly as possible, and to raise awareness of the scheme. To date, the Home Office has attended or hosted over 100 engagement and outreach events and task force surgeries throughout the UK. The Home Office is working with community leaders on a digital engagement programme, to ensure that outreach can continue despite the current lockdown. The number of claims submitted to the scheme so far is, however, much lower than expected and we recognise that there is more to do.
In March, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced a £500,000 community fund to enable grass-roots organisations to promote the Windrush compensation scheme and the Windrush scheme. We are committed to working with members of the community to shape the principles of the fund and intend to work with stakeholders to co-design it. The Home Secretary also announced that we will launch a national communications campaign, which will build on existing communications activities to raise awareness of the schemes and ensure that people know how to apply. We recognise that no amount of money can undo the injustice that some members of the Windrush generation have faced. We are committed to tackling those wider injustices as well.
As the Home Secretary said on publication of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, despite the diverse and open nature of this country, too many people still feel that they may be treated differently because of who they are or where their parents came from. That is why we are launching an expanded cross-government Windrush working group, to develop programmes to improve the lives of those affected. That may be through employment support programmes, dedicated mental health support, and specialist education and training schemes. We will continue to listen to stakeholders as we take forward establishing this group, and we are committed to ensuring that the Home Office, and wider government, protects, supports and listens to every single part of the community it serves.
Members of the Windrush generation have given so much to this country, often working in the sectors at the forefront in the fight against Covid-19. I put on record again my gratitude to all those members of the Windrush generation, and their descendants, who are working tirelessly to tackle this dreadful virus. Many people in this country owe them their lives. As the  noble Baroness, Lady Bull, noted at Second Reading of the Bill, it is extremely worrying that BAME individuals appear to account for a disproportionate percentage of those affected and who have sadly died during this pandemic.
On 22 April, the National Institute for Health Research and UK Research and Innovation published a highlight notice requesting research to understand emerging evidence of an association between ethnicity and Covid-19 incidence and adverse health outcomes, and to respond to concerns that health, care and other key workers who belong to BAME groups may be particularly at risk. This call is designed to complement and add to existing work already being done by academic groups and Public Health England, which is also looking at wider inequalities.
The Windrush compensation scheme is only one aspect of a broad range of matters to be discussed in relation to the Windrush generation and the challenges that they have faced. We know that there is more still to do, and we will work with every part of government to tackle inequality and ensure justice for the Windrush generation. I beg to move.

Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon: My Lords, the scandal surrounding the Windrush generation, leading to the subsequent report by Wendy Williams, and the unlawful removal of British residents to countries that they might have left as children, was first highlighted by the Guardian in 2017 and came to a head in 2018. The scandal saw the deportation of individuals to Caribbean countries, including many to Jamaica.
I was part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we took evidence from individuals affected by the scandal. Some were remanded in detention centres, awaiting deportation. They talked about the effect of that on their mental health and about the separation from their families. All had lost their jobs and homes. The lack of documents affected all those who found themselves in this position. Many of these individuals arrived in this country as children, on a parent’s passport, and would not have had documents, or they travelled on a British passport before the country of origin gained independence.
The Government need to remember that the Windrush generation were invited here, after World War II, to rebuild the country. The jobs that were vacant were on the buses and railways, and in hospitals. People from the Caribbean who answered that invitation faced discrimination and racism from the start.
The scandal of the Windrush generation has been going on since the late 1990s and early 2000s. Many people who travelled to Jamaica, either on holiday or for the funeral of a family member, found themselves stopped at the airport and unable to return to the UK. Many died without having their cases looked at. The report also listed five cases, all giving different stories of their experiences, which I found upsetting to read. I can only imagine the distress that these individuals have gone through. We should do everything that we can to amend the mistake made against them. Wendy Williams’s report said that
“institutional amnesia and inadequate practice denied them their liberty. It denied them their freedom of movement. It denied them a normal life.”
In conclusion, Wendy Williams’s report made 30 recommendations. Will they all be accepted? Also, how can the Government avoid discriminating when making compensation payments to individuals while waiting for Royal Assent? Individual officers are still being asked to assess status, burden of proof and the amount that each recipient should receive. How can we monitor this and ensure that mistakes do not again cause the same distress which these individuals have gone through? In future, the Government should make sure that these concerns are heard as part of the lessons learned so that people’s rights cannot be taken away from them.

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, in her response to Wendy Williams’ Windrush review, the Home Secretary said:
“we were all shocked to discover that they and their families were subject to such insensitive treatment by the very country they called home.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/20; col. 1154.]
Sadly, insensitive treatment is regarded by many as the Home Office’s stock-in-trade. It took a commendable series of articles and a book by journalist Amelia Gentleman—as she rightly remarked:
“The ability to feel outrage is a powerful tool.”—
to bring that to a wider public.
The Windrush scandal was not a mistake or some unfortunate one-off bureaucratic error. It was a direct result of a pledging war between the two main parties to cut the numbers of immigrants—in particular, Tory political promises to reduce net migration to an arbitrary target of tens of thousands and
“to create here in Britain a really hostile environment for illegal migration.”
The effect of the hostile environment policy was clearly racially discriminatory, but Ministers refused to listen to the chorus of warnings. Although stopping short of a full finding of institutional racism, Wendy Williams found
“an institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race and the history of the Windrush generation”.
The scandal also displayed all the worst aspects of bureaucracy: complex laws that very few understood, coupled with historical amnesia; a “culture of disbelief” and refusal to listen to what people were saying; the distorting effect that targets can have; a cruel lack of humanity; misinformation, doublespeak and inaccessibility; the lumping together of different categories, in this case legal with illegal residents; sheer incompetence, such as in destroying vital files, poor record-keeping, absence of corporate memory and poor-quality decision-making; and resistance to legitimate criticism. Will we see not only compensation but real change? There is some hope that the frenzy of Brexit-fuelled anti-immigrant hysteria has waned, and there are indications of public appreciation of the positive value of immigration, not least in the NHS and care services.
One key test of the Government’s attitude will be the treatment of the 3 million EU nationals, but, like the Windrush generation, many of them have been  asked for an unreasonable level of proof. In a welcome change of tune, Michael Gove told our EU committee yesterday that a physical status document might be considered. An appeal to the Home Office to change its habits of a lifetime might get little traction on the basis of sheer humanity and sensitivity, but in a world in which the UK will be competing for workers of all levels of skill it would be wise for it to ensure that its reputation for nastiness and incompetence does not continue to harm the national interest.

Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the opportunity for the House to discuss the issues raised by the Wendy Williams review and the Windrush compensation scheme, further to an initial debate about the Bill itself. I will press the Minister on one or two matters raised in that debate that did not receive a specific answer. We looked at the areas for which historical compensation can be paid. I raised the specific point about reputational damage to individuals, especially from the loss of their work or their removal from the country. Reputational damage should be a factor considered for compensation. Can the Minister reply on that matter?
The Minister also discussed briefly in her opening remarks the point about improving the lives of those directly affected. There were some examples of what that might mean, but very often a fundamental aspect of improving the lives of people who come from a Caribbean culture is to pay them due dignity and respect. I suggest that the Minister and the Government might seek to bring together an annual conference in the Palace of Westminster—not a perpetual conference of apology, but one of listening, heeding, supporting, enabling and empowering those who feel that their contributions might well have received some kind of financial return, but who, in effect, need to be respected, heard and listened to with greater dignity.
The particular questions raised by the specific issues referred to in Wendy Williams’ report cause us to ask the hard questions. Who was institutionally ignorant in the Home Office? Who was thoughtless? Was this simply down to political direction, as referred to in the previous speech, by Governments of both colours wanting to limit the amount of immigration, or was there some kind of systemic thoughtlessness within the structures and permanent operations of the Home Office?
We await the Home Secretary’s reply, which is permitted to be within six months of the publication of the report. Might the Minister advise us whether she can give a specific date when that reply, analysis and return will come from the Home Secretary? Could she also give some consideration to how the Home Office will in reality deal with this institutional ignorance? The only way to remove ignorance is to educate; the only way to remove thoughtlessness is to empathise. What specific actions of empathy and education has the Home Office undertaken to ensure that these aspects are removed?
I have one further point. Over time, those in power forgot about these people’s circumstances. If the Minister would allow it, could we put in place some way to  make sure that we never forget—to bring them together, honour them, bring dignity to them and provide them with due respect?

Lord Chartres: My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing this virtual debate. Almost two years ago, the Windrush scandal astounded this country. The hostile environment policy operated by the Home Office was shown to be discriminatory and damaging. It had neglected a critical principle that is foundational to my Christian faith: human dignity.
Process must support people. This needs to apply not only to our migration policy and departments, as clearly set out in the lessons learned review, but to the way we do what we have committed to do, such as the Windrush compensation scheme. From that standpoint, we need to evaluate how accessible the scheme is to those who are trying to rightfully claim underneath it, and that it is a process that honours their human dignity.
However, there are clearly indications that this is not presently the case. The Windrush compensation scheme was launched 12 months ago. Since then, figures show that only 35 people have been granted urgent and exceptional support payments totalling £46,795. The scheme is expected to pay out between £20 million and £30 million—in other words, the compensation offered thus far does not seem to reflect the scale of the scandal. Many victims have been adversely affected for years—for decades—suffering ill health, homelessness and mounting debt. Some, sadly, have passed way as a result of the scandal.
Not only does the speed at which the compensation is distributed not seem to honour the dignity of those affected but there is also the issue of accessibility. The compensation scheme application process should be reduced from its 18-page document, for which external help is so often required. It needs to create an easy, accessible document for survivors and community organisations. This would simply be in line with the best practice under the Equality Act.
Lastly, I highlight the fact that there is a significant lack of trust in the scheme, because the department that has been accusing victims for so long runs it. Serious consideration needs to be given to an external organisation managing the scheme, which would help in rightly building the confidence in what the scheme aims to deliver.

Lord Blencathra: My Lords, this coronavirus pandemic has shown us who really matters in our country. Of course, we all immediately think of the NHS staff, but we would all be starving if we did not have tens of thousands of people stacking shelves and lorry drivers delivering vital supplies 24 hours per day. I pay tribute to them, as well as the dustbin men, farm labourers, cleaners, cashiers, sewing machinists, vets’ assistants, call centre staff and hosts of other low-paid workers who have been keeping us going in lockdown and getting our deliveries to us. These and other low-paid manual workers are the heroes of this pandemic. Many of them are doing exactly the same work that the Windrush generation came here to do.
The people who will not be missed are the rather vacuous celebrities and rapacious lawyers—but no doubt the lawyers will crawl out again to mount massive claims against the NHS and everyone else they can think of whom they perceive to have deep pockets. They have contributed nothing to help us get through this crisis but will be out in droves, ambulance chasing, when it is over. That is why I am pleased that they will not be part of the Windrush claims process.
Many of us could not be in the Chamber at Second Reading, but I was concerned at some noble Lords’ comments that lawyers should be permitted to submit claims or even get legal aid to do so. We all know that lawyers who work on a no-win no-fee basis will rip off the client, who gets left with a tiny award at the end of it. If they were to get legal aid for this, they would rip off the taxpayer.
Some noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, said that the form was too long and complicated, so I downloaded it to have a look. It is long but relatively simple, and claimants need to complete only the sections that relate to their individual circumstances. I think my noble friend the Minister has designed the compensation scheme and the forms to be as clear and simple as possible. For me, the telling point is that they were tested by the users, who found them satisfactory.
For those who want or need support to make a claim, the Home Office has funded Citizens Advice to provide free independent advice and support, and there will of course be the £500,000 fund for grass-roots organisations to promote the Windrush scheme and provide advice. In view of the scheme’s simplicity and the help available, there is no need for lawyers to get their noses in this trough on either moral or practical grounds, and I urge my noble friend the Minister not to budge on this.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, I first thank the Government for tabling this Motion today, enabling a wide group of Members to take part in the debate on the Windrush scandal compensation scheme. Having only three minutes means that it is difficult, if not impossible, to get across all the points I want to make. I have agreed with the contributions made by noble Lords so far and am certain I will agree with those made during the rest of the debate.
I have a number of questions to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and I hope she can respond to them when she replies to the debate. If not, I look forward to receiving a written response copied to all Members of the House speaking in the debate.
Can the Minister set out the terms of the compensation offered to victims? By that, I mean the framework. Is this a full and final settlement? Can it be revisited? It would also be helpful if the Minister confirmed to the House that, if people have been deported, all the costs associated with their return to the UK will be borne by the Government without any question, and that this does not form any part of the compensation package itself.
Moving on to jobs that have been lost due to the actions of the Government, is the compensation received seeking to address that in all relevant cases, and will  there be any action by the Government to help people find re-employment? Where people have lost their homes, they could have lost their tenancy. What action will the Government take to get victims back to the position they enjoyed in respect of their housing before they suffered this injustice? Finally, what are the oversight proposals to ensure that victims are treated properly and fairly and do not suffer further injustice?

Baroness Benjamin: My Lords, in 2017 I was honoured to be asked by the Government to chair the Windrush Commemoration Committee, to create a Windrush monument in recognition of the contribution that Caribbean people have made to Britain. In 2022, the monument will be erected at Waterloo station, where thousands of West Indians like myself arrived in Britain before dispersing across the whole of the UK. However, the committee is finding it hard to make this a joyful experience, because of the Windrush scandal and the shame hanging over the country. This needs to be solved urgently.
Like many West Indians, I have dedicated my life to serving this country. We were brought up in the Caribbean to believe that we were British—part of the motherland—and taught at school to celebrate British history. In 1960, I was one of the lucky children who arrived in Britain with my own passport, but the Windrush scandal has shown that it could have been so different for me had I not had one.
Life during those early years in Britain was harsh, brutal and cruel. My whole family, all eight of us, lived in one room, as there was little accommodation available for Caribbean people. I saw those signs saying, “no Irish, no dogs, no coloureds”. I had people spit at me. Grown men lifted my skirt and said, “Where’s your tail, monkey?” I was not served in shops; I was even turned away from the church. These were the indignities that we had to suffer, with resilience and determination. We were made to feel as though we did not belong. We felt a sense of betrayal, as the general public knew nothing about us, but we were too proud to return or tell families back in the Caribbean about the hardship, discrimination and rejection we were facing. Besides, there was little money, because the jobs available were low paid. My mother had three jobs in a day to try to make ends meet.
All this meant that culturally, people from that generation did not go on holiday, travel abroad, register for a passport or take part in any national register. This partly explains why so many people did not have the necessary documents and became caught up in the Windrush scandal, facing unbelievable hostility with little compassion, consideration or cultural understanding, some dying due to the stress and trauma.
Thanks to much campaigning, the Windrush compensation scheme was meant to help correct the injustice, but little progress has been made. Minimal funds have been paid out and faith in the Home Office is at an all-time low. To move forward, trust in the Home Office needs to be restored, as it is still associated with the hostile environment, complicated forms and deportation flights. Trust is also needed in the appeals system, especially when cultural decisions are to be made, and in those in the Caribbean who are part of the scandal.
How does the Home Office intend to restore that trust? One suggestion is for the Government, in order to restore confidence, to establish an independent advisory group and chair, reporting directly to the Cabinet Office, on the implementation of all 30 vital recommendations of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review by Wendy Williams. The Windrush monument will be a way to define and celebrate black British history. Let it not be the Windrush scandal.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: Lord Woolf? We cannot hear the noble and learned Lord; we will perhaps come back to him. Lord Sheikh.

Lord Sheikh: My Lords, the Windrush scandal is, without doubt, one of the most unfortunate episodes in this country’s history. My family came to Britain as refugees from Uganda, so I understand how it feels to leave the only country you have ever known behind. To be told that you are not welcome in the country you thought was your home is one of the most painful experiences one can imagine.
When we arrived in Britain, we were given shelter and assistance by the Conservative Government led by Ted Heath. The treatment of the Windrush generation was the opposite. These people included veterans who had fought in both world wars for king and country but were later made to feel desperately unwelcome. They saw themselves as British, with their right to citizenship enshrined in law, but the treatment they received from some of their fellow Britons was less than welcoming. The new arrivals faced discrimination in employment and housing as well as socially. They were prey to vultures like Peter Rachman, who terrorised his Caribbean tenants with bouncers, dogs and impossible demands for rent. To have endured this treatment only to be told later that you have no right to remain is nothing short of scandalous. Not only the immigrants but their children have been badly treated.
I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s efforts to put right these grave injustices through the Windrush compensation scheme. It is vital that those who have suffered can seek redress and support as much as possible. Those in positions of authority must learn from past mistakes to ensure that they are not repeated in the future. The review by Wendy Williams forms an important part of this learning. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could inform your Lordships’ House as to what steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to implement the findings of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review.
It is deeply regrettable that, to this day, we do not know how many people have been affected by this disaster. Many lost their jobs, were evicted, detained in migration centres, denied medical treatment, or may have been deported. Worst of all, we know that a number have passed away without being able to seek justice. I sincerely hope that the Windrush compensation scheme will go some way towards restoring trust and healing the wounds caused to victims and their loved ones.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh. Do we now have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf? No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport.

Baroness Wilcox of Newport: My Lords, before beginning my contribution today, I would like the House to note my entries on the register of interests.
Many years ago, at the start of my teaching career, I was employed by the Inner London Education Authority in several schools in the London Borough of Lambeth—Stockwell Manor, Beaufoy boys’ school and finally Priory Park School—now all amalgamated and changed. I did not realise that I would meet a chair of governors of Priory Park School many years later on these Benches: my noble friend Lord Boateng.
Each school had a multi-ethnic intake of pupils, mainly from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds; it was a wonderful experience for a Welsh valleys girl to engage with this wide variety of cultures. I was living in Brixton at the time, and this was indeed the heart of the Caribbean community in south London. Little did I realise then what problems would arise almost four decades later for the parents of those pupils and indeed for some of those youngsters themselves.
The compensation scheme has fallen short of expectations. British citizens have been wrongfully detained and deported, lost jobs and been prevented from returning home from abroad. By the Government’s own admission, they are continuing to fail the Windrush victims. The scheme is not well publicised. Many are frightened to claim the compensation through fear of the “hostile environment”, and I believe that, to date, only a very small percentage of claimants have received compensation.
The Government should provide funding for voluntary groups to assist claimants to apply for compensation. The investigative nature of the documentation requires a great deal of form filling, and it is not often possible by individuals as it involves HMRC, medical records and council records. So people are caught between situations as they try to find appropriate evidence and to avoid contact with the authorities for fear of being deported or detained. This fear has led to great problems in finding enough documentary evidence to support claims.
More than 12,000 people who were wrongly classified by the Home Office as illegal immigrants have now been given citizenship or some other form of documentation proving that they have, and always had, the right to live in the UK, but there are more than 3,700 outstanding cases with the Windrush taskforce. Those people who still await an outcome, in some cases for more than a year, have been left with great anxiety at a time when the Government should be doing everything they can to speed up and support the applications. Will the Minister say whether people will be able to appeal a compensation decision? Why is legal aid not being made available to pursue claims?

Lord Mann: My Lords, I have two points to make in my contribution. They are to do with the isolation of part of the Windrush community in some  parts of the country. I recall that, during the coal miners’ strike of 1984-85, I was asked to look after the only black miner out of 2,500 miners working at Manton colliery in Worksop. When the union asked whether I would take him under my wing, assist him and look after him during the strike, I asked why. The answer was “For his safety.”
In those coal-mining communities and in similar rural and semi-rural communities, there are scattered around many individuals who are from the Windrush generation and who are potentially eligible for compensation, but in my experience they tend to be less well connected to others of that generation and therefore more isolated in terms of information. There is one very straightforward thing that does not appear to have happened, so I propose to the Minister that she should write to local newspapers, such as the Worksop Guardian, the Mansfield Chad, the Retford Times and the Doncaster Free Press, spelling out in simple terms who is eligible and why and what they can do about it. That will open it up to those individuals, some of whom I assisted in my former representative role to apply and win the compensation they were due.
My second point echoes that made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. My experience of coal miners’ claims for industrial injury is that solicitors and claims handlers took one-quarter, sometimes more, of the settlement, and people will not come forward in the same numbers. Citizens advice bureaux ought to be empowered and given a modest degree of funding to promote the case and give advice to individuals, whatever kind of community they live in. Then those in areas such as Nottinghamshire who are due compensation will have the opportunity to get it.

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: My Lords, this scheme is an attempt to compensate a generation of people who found themselves with a genuine and terrible injustice. It is a real stain on this country’s recent history, highlighted by that moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I draw to the attention of the Government another injustice that will not be addressed by this measure yet affects many of the Windrush generation and many others, too, throughout the world.
Monica Philip was one of the Windrush generation who accepted the invitation from the British Government to emigrate from the Caribbean to help fill the employment gap in the UK. She arrived in the UK shortly before her 21st birthday in 1959 and worked tirelessly in a variety of jobs, including as a courier for 15 years in the Ministry of Defence. Her mother’s illness and failing eyesight forced Monica to leave the UK and return to Antigua in 1996, two years before her due retirement age.
In 1998, Monica was advised that she was entitled to a UK state pension, payment of which commenced in October 1998 at a rate of £74.11 per week; but it has remained at that level ever since. It is extremely unfair that this hard-working lady, who is now of course elderly, accepted the UK Government’s call to work here and, after paying for 37 years the same contributions as everybody else and then accepting the responsibility  of returning to Antigua to look after her ailing mother, was effectively cheated out of her rightful pension. Her younger sister, who also emigrated to the UK but remains here, received a full pension which, with annual increases, is roughly double that of her elder sister.
I should like to highlight another Antiguan, Harold Williams, who left the island in 1955 aged 20. He worked hard and was always employed; he did his National Service here in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers regiment. For 40 years, Harold contributed diligently to the national insurance scheme. When he returned to Antigua, he was at no time informed that his pension would be frozen on his return. These frozen pensioners never have an increase in the basic pension, and this iniquity exists for the majority of Commonwealth countries. Strangely, in the Caribbean only Barbados and Jamaica do not have frozen pensions.
In my years in the other place, I consistently heard Ministers of all Governments give their excuses for this state of affairs. It can be resolved without a huge cost to the Treasury. I know that the measure we are discussing cannot address this; indeed, the Minister is not from the relevant department. However, this is indeed another stain on our country’s much vaunted sense of fairness and equality. I urge the Government to think again and I will return to this until we right this wrong. I thank noble Lords for their indulgence in letting me raise this issue today.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: I hope that we can now hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Do we have him?

Lord Woolf: Yes, you have me. I apologise, but the system went down. I welcome this debate and am delighted to take part. I refer to my entries in the register, which include my membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired so well by the right honourable Harriet Harman. I also acknowledge the help I received from the excellent Library briefing for this debate.
The finding of the Joint Committee on the Windrush generation makes very sad reading, as confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. When something goes wrong in a society, it is very important that the society not only acknowledges that this has happened but makes sure that it is redeemed, in so far as that is possible. There are times when any Government can depart from the standards that the rule of law requires. I hope that the Minister will accept without reservation that this is such an occasion. If so, the state is under a clear obligation to remedy the situation. In doing so, it should adopt a generous and open approach.
Sadly, although the Government appeared initially to be adopting the correct approach, they have departed from it. It is worrying that the question of compensation has not been dealt with expeditiously. I cannot believe that more claims would not have been concluded if the Home Office had shown greater flexibility. I can understand why the former shadow Home Secretary said:
“The amount and the quantity of the payments are pitifully small”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/20; col. 626.]
I agree with Wendy Williams that a more personalised and sensitive approach to claimants should have been adopted. Even with my experience many years ago of acting in the courts for most government departments for five years, it takes my breath away that the Home Office, having failed to make or conserve any records, tries to rely on the inadequacy of the Windrush claimants’ efforts to produce records and establish the right to citizenship given to them by the Immigration Act 1971. Then, for a time at any rate, the Home Office turned on its head the burden of proof. A more appropriate approach would have been to give the claimants the benefit of any reasonable doubt. That is what should be done. It is not necessary for representation; what is needed for justice to be done to the claimants has not happened yet.

Baroness Kennedy of Cradley: My Lords, given the time limit we have today, I want to make three specific points. First, the Windrush scandal has touched every part of Britain. In Lewisham Deptford where I live, my local Member of Parliament, Vicky Foxcroft, recently noted that she is now handling cases for 22 people who are part of the Windrush scandal. I pay tribute to her and her team and to the excellent but underfunded Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network, which works with local people on these issues. Sadly, in one of the cases, a constituent’s father died while awaiting a decision on his Windrush application. I want therefore to ask the Minister: where an applicant dies before a decision on their application is made, would a relative still be eligible to claim under the deceased person’s estate claim? It seems that parental status needs to be settled before an application can be considered.
Secondly, community confidence in the scheme is low. It is deeply disappointing that the scheme has paid out so little to so few. An independent system managed outside the Home Office has, sadly, been ruled out by the Government, yet some of the recommendations from Wendy Williams’s review are about changing the culture in the Home Office. For example, she states that staff should learn about,
“the history of inward and outward migration and the history of black Britons.”
Have the staff working on Windrush taskforce and scheme gone through this type of learning? If not, why not, and will they?
Finally, we need to learn from decisions already taken continually to improve the scheme. The latest figures show that fewer than one in 20 Windrush claimants have received compensation. Knowing the reasons given for negative outcomes would allow for an assessment of whether any part of the process, such as the need to gather a large amount of evidence, are barriers to successful claims. Will the Minister commit to a review of negative outcomes to inform our understanding of the scheme and how it works in practice?

Baroness Garden of Frognal: The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is having IT problems, so we will now go to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.

Baroness Bull: My Lords, it hardly seems possible that this issue could have assumed greater significance now than when it first came to public attention in 2017, but this pandemic has highlighted the extraordinary contribution of the Windrush generation and their descendants to the UK and to vital public services such as health, social care and transport, making even more shameful the treatment they received as a result of the Windrush scandal. Some of them have answered government’s call and come out of retirement to help this country through our current crisis, echoing their response in 1948 when they boarded “Empire Windrush” to help rebuild a nation devastated by war.
This scheme is an important step towards redressing the considerable wrongs visited on those original pioneers and on other Commonwealth citizens, injustices powerfully articulated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon and Lady Benjamin. I want to address three points.
The first is on the importance of getting implementation right. I welcome the establishment of the cross-government working group and the £500,000 community fund for grassroots organisations to promote and advise. However, as I noted at Second Reading, grassroots organisations are effective because they are community-specific and, given the range of communities and locations involved, this funding may not be sufficient.
Concerns have also been raised about the complexity of the process and whether this contributes to the small number of applications having been received so far: around 1,000, despite the Home Office estimating that some 15,000 people could be eligible. Lack of access to legal aid may be a factor, and so might lack of trust. Is the Minister confident that the Home Office can earn the confidence of communities which have every reason to be nervous of engaging with it?
Secondly, I want to stress the importance of adopting the lessons of Wendy Williams’s review more widely across government. As she says, we must
“go further to right the wrongs”.
With that in mind, I urge the Government to address the growing risk that the EU settlement scheme becomes what some charities are already calling “this generation’s Windrush”. Does the Minister share my concerns that we risk creating once again a tier of second-class citizens and that the lessons of Windrush have not been learned?
Finally, we should not imagine that this scheme on its own will end the discrimination against BAME communities so clearly evident in relative rates of poverty, access to education, housing and employment and in social and health-related inequalities. This has been highlighted in the gravest of ways in the disproportionate numbers of BAME patients and NHS staff critically ill with, and dying from, Covid-19.
This scheme is welcome, but we would most effectively honour the legacy of the Windrush generation by a wholehearted commitment to eradicating, once and for all, the inequality, discrimination and denial of rights that gave rise to and perpetrated one of the most shameful episodes in our national life.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for giving us this opportunity to discuss what was indeed a failure of British law, politics and bureaucracy. Tens of thousands of people’s lives were damaged or destroyed as a result. It is an even greater scandal because, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, these are the people contributing so greatly to dealing with the coronavirus epidemic at the moment. Indeed, they are more likely to catch the virus themselves, so they are putting their lives at risk. These are people who helped to build up our country after the Second World War and who are clearly British. They were put through a terrible time and it was exacerbated by the fact that Ministers in the Government had this policy of a hostile environment. That sadly did not help. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that this will never happen again.
A related matter that I want to mention is the freedom of the press. I did a report on this for the Council of Europe recently. It is so vital in our democracy. The Guardian needs to be commended for the way it highlighted this. One wonders what might have happened if there had not been such concentration on this by the media and the revelations that highlighted it.
I want to ask the Minister three things in relation to the scheme, which I hope she will deal with in her reply. First, the compensation payments seem to be calculated on the financial impact—loss of income, loss of access to housing and other things that people suffered. Can we have an assurance that there will be some compensation for the grief and the psychological effects? They can be assessed, so some assessment should be made and that must be included as well.
Secondly, the Minister said that there was no cap on the expenditure, but at the moment only £20 million to £30 million is allocated. Some 15,000 people have applied, but the Office for National Statistics thinks that six times as many could be eligible. Can we get an assurance that the money in the budget will be increased to take account of that?
Finally, can we get an assurance that any knock-on effect on the younger generation will be taken account of, to support the sons and grandsons of this generation and to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen again? We have a duty to learn from this and make sure that we, and future British Governments, never let this kind of thing happen again. I hope the Minister will give us some assurances in her reply.

Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, there is only one race: the human race. When I was a parliamentary candidate in Cheltenham in 1992, I was accused by an angry woman of bringing racism to the town. I replied, “Madam, before I came to Cheltenham, you had no black people here.”
In 1948, the British Government made a desperate call to the Caribbean for workers, but they also got people. My Jamaican father fought for Britain as a sergeant in the Eighth Army in the Second World War. He was one of thousands from the Commonwealth answering the call to help rebuild post-war Britain. When he came to England on the HMS “Windrush”,  my father was shocked to see posters warning, “No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs”, but consoled himself with the observation, “Well, at least I’m first in the queue!”
Ironically, it was my father’s talent as a professional cricketer which meant he experienced a higher level of racism at exclusive events such as Ascot and Henley, to which most black people were not even invited. He also became the first black soccer referee in the 1950s. The players were so stunned to see a black referee that they forgot to shout and swear at each other on the pitch.
My mother also came from Jamaica in 1948. Her father had been a dedicated chief of police in Jamaica and was awarded an OBE. She served for many decades as a nurse in our NHS. When she retired, she became a volunteer hospital visitor for the Stroke Association. My parents are model examples of the Windrush generation who endured racism and other challenges to make a positive contribution here.
It must be recognised that many of the Windrush generation, like my mother, became the dedicated backbone and inspiration for the excellent NHS we are currently saluting for saving our lives and keeping us safe during this Covid-19 virus period. In 2002 I had the privilege to open an orthopaedic hospital in Kingston, Jamaica. It was ironic to hear from the management that a major challenge that Commonwealth hospitals have faced over decades is the continuing loss of excellent nurses and other skilled medical staff to more prosperous nations such as Britain.
I spent many years at the BBC as a producer and presenter at White City. I wondered if it was called that because everyone above kitchen level was white. It is against that personal background that I found the Windrush scandal so outrageous. However, it is not just about the Windrush generation; this scandal offends the whole nation and affects the reputation of Britain across the rest of the world.
I have some questions for the Minister. What is the total number of claimants so far? Only £62,000 has been awarded so far, which is a pitiful sum. Legal aid is a right; it is not about fat cat lawyers, it is about justice. Will there be a permanent independent adviser? Will the Minister consider extending the deadline because of the problems we now have with Covid-19?
We are a nation of immigrants. Because of this episode, we are now learning to value many people, key workers, who have previously been overlooked. This is a new era, like the roaring 1920s and the Second World War. This is the new roaring 2020s, when victims have the opportunity to become victors. This is a shake up to wake up.
It is about equality and justice for all. As Martin Luther King said, we have all come on different ships, but we are all in the same boat now. After the chess game is over, the black and white pieces all go back in the same box.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth: My Lords, like others, I very much welcome this debate, and indeed I welcome the compensation scheme in general terms. I also thank the Minister; I know my noble friend is determined to act justly with regard to the scheme.
We have an incredible paradox. At the same time as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, whom I was very pleased to work alongside, and I were delivering Windrush Day, to be celebrated on 22 June every year as a national day of celebration by all Britons, not just proud Windrush Britons and their descendants, we were faced with the Windrush scandal. We all admit that it is a scandal and that it needs dealing with quickly and fairly. Against that background, I have four areas that I would like the Minister to address by saying what is being done. I know that many of these are being brought up by Wendy Williams in her review as well.
The first is the need for a personalised approach so that every individual is treated individually. Every case is different and they do not deserve to be lumped together, as seems the case at the moment. Will the Minister please commit to this happening and ensure that it does?
Secondly, others have referred to the speed of treatment of cases, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and I very much agree. According to Home Office figures, there had been 1,108 claims to the end of last year but only 36 payments. That is 3%, which is totally inadequate. I really hope that the Minister is able to give us some sort of road map for how this backlog of claims—there must be a backlog—will be dealt with, because many people will die before they get their claims settled.
Thirdly, I appreciate that the deadline of the scheme has been extended to 2023, but against the backdrop of the dreadful virus and the slowness that there must now be—I do not point the finger of blame at anyone in particular for that—it may well be that we need to look at an extension beyond that. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister in that regard.
Lastly, on the complexity of the application form, I tend to agree more with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London than with my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Although some people will be able to deal with the form, it is 18 pages long. It is not totally complex but there are complex parts of it, and there are 44 pages of guidance. Many people will need help so that they are able to fill in the form and ensure that they get their claim.
I would be grateful if my noble friend could take up these points. In so far as she is not able to deal with them in her response today, although I hope she is, I would be grateful if she could write to me and ensure that others in this debate are copied in on the response.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving us the opportunity to debate again this very sad issue. Many noble Lords have spoken of the problems and the history of this massive unfairness; it is a real human disaster. I suspect that it goes back to what I have seen for many years as the institutional racism of the Home Office.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes talked about the work that the Guardian has done in reporting on about 1,000 wrongful immigration offence reviews not being started for two years, and a backlog of 3,720 since the  scandal was uncovered. Has the Home Office really changed its spots, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, suggested?
I recall that an early draft of the Williams report called the Home Office institutionally racist, and reckless in developing a defensive culture around immigration policy. Of course, you do not often get away with criticising the spoon that feeds you, as I found with my HS2 report. Has the Home Office really changed its spots?
I recall the immigration Bill, which I think has now been withdrawn. Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I have to question how our hospitals would survive without immigrants. How would the academic world survive without the movement of world-beating academics? The hospitality sector is in very serious trouble, as I spoke about last week. Then, of course, there are the fruit and vegetable pickers; we now have to fly them in from Bulgaria, forgetting all about social distancing, which seems not to matter. We are in a worse state than Germany, where the chairman of the German fruit growers’ association was reported as saying that Germans are the wrong shape for picking fruit and do not like bending down. I think that applies to the UK as well.
The Home Office needs to change its spots and get rid of this dogmatic and unfair approach, which will do nothing to help our economy recover. Will the Home Office reflect fully on the Williams report and its recommendations? Will the Minister support the excellent suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, of an independent review? That is a great idea, but it must be truly independent, and preferably not led by the Home Office.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: I think that we may have the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. No, we have no luck there. We will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Baroness Hamwee: This has been a heartfelt debate, and I am only sorry that the system has not shown every speaker on the screen, although we have heard from them all other than my noble friend Lord Dholakia. As I have been able to see what my noble friend was going to say before the debate started, I hope he will have another opportunity to make what I know would have been a very clear and tough speech.
Let us contrast the photographs of the bright, eager faces of people arriving here in the 1940s and 1950s, looking forward to a new life and contributing to the UK, with those who later found out that not only were they not wanted, they were not recognised. The terms for what many of them did are topical: key workers, essential workers. Wendy Williams as well as parliamentary committees have used case studies that include current photographs. The experiences of individuals illuminate the whole. The media have used case studies too, and I pay tribute, as others have done, to the investigative journalists who have shone a light on the scandal. Amelia Gentleman’s book is analytical, distressing and shaming. The compensation scheme, in the words of the recent Bill, applies to
“certain categories of persons in recognition of difficulties arising out of an inability to demonstrate lawful immigration status.”
Those are weasel words. The recognition is that the Home Office was unable to recognise the law or rights. They are rights, not something that some people deserve, which is the language used too often by some Ministers, although not, I think, by the noble Baroness. It is as if they have to be earned and can be forfeited.
Victim blaming is never attractive. We are told that people should have contacted the Home Office, but it is a bit rich to have expected the Windrush generation to understand what the Home Office did not. Could any of us list all the provisions of our complex immigration legislation, any more than we could provide evidence for every year of our residence? I threw away my school reports when I cleared my mother’s house. The Home Office threw away records when it cleared an office, despite junior officials protesting about how often they referred to them.
I want to ask just a few questions beyond those asked by other noble Lords about the scheme and about the people who have been affected by what happened. What have the Government learned about outsourcing public sector work to the private sector? Have they logged the losses of jobs, of homes, of medical treatment and benefits denied? How many people were detained? I cannot let this moment go by without mentioning the detention, neither necessary nor proportionate when there is no risk of absconding, of people who were not criminals. In 2020, in the midst of a pandemic, we are putting at risk, by continuing their detention, people who are not criminals or who have served their sentence.
Why do some components of the claim to the scheme have to meet the criminal standard of proof, or its equivalent? This reflects the original problem that the Home Office required standards of proof that were difficult if not impossible to meet; to quote the review,
“an environment for staff to reject rather than be proportionate or objective in each case.”
Why is there not a longer cut-off date for claims? After all, the Government, in the shape of HMRC questioning taxpayers, can go back six years. How many people are now thought to have a claim and how many died before they even received an apology?
The Minister will resist any suggestion of a read-across to the EU settled status scheme, although I will make one, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I accept that some experience has been applied, but although the Windrush scandal may have been unforeseen, it was both foreseeable and avoidable. I would like to think that, in applying the settled status scheme, the culture of disbelief and of carelessness and ignorance has been ditched in favour of the recognition of a duty of care to applicants. The NAO referred to this too. The large proportion of grants of pre-settled, not settled, status that have been made surely raises a warning flag of problems down the line when applicants discover that what they have been granted is not what they had understood it to be.
It is right that the department should reflect on the review, but not all the recommendations require a pause. The hostile environment was designed to be read as hostile and intolerable to immigrants, and it  was racist. Merely rebranding it takes political loyalties too far. Wendy Williams is measured but clear, recommending
“a full review and evaluation of the … policy and measures—individually and cumulatively … whether they are effective and proportionate in meeting their stated aim, given the risks inherent in the policy … and its impact on British citizens and migrants with status, with reference to equality law and particularly the public sector equality duty.”
Legislatively that environment can be dismantled now.
When the previous Home Secretary responded to a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was a member, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on the detention of members of the Windrush generation, he referred to establishing a casework profession with a culture that puts the customer—perhaps not the term I would have chosen—at the heart of decision-making, and ensuring better use of face-to-face engagement. I think the Minister will acknowledge that there was scarcely any such engagement.
I do not know whether the Minister has up-to-date news on work on cultural change. She has referred to some of the processes now being undertaken. These may have been the subject of her letter of 30 April, which I do not seem to have received, so I apologise if I have raised points which are covered in that letter. Ms Williams’ review was of course not of the whole of the Home Office; nevertheless, it is surely widely applicable. She is clear about the importance of diversity in the Home Office, not just at junior levels, and about engagement with citizens, applicants and staff.
Ms Williams is clear too that some of her recommendations, if implemented, will have tangible outcomes: the level of successful appeals, the quality of casework, and better informed and better evaluated policy. Other outcomes are intangible but essential: the look and feel of the department, with a values-led culture and a mission bought into by all levels of staff.
The Government as a whole should reflect on the review, because there are lessons for the whole of government. I look forward to hearing in a few months’ time what lessons have been learned, and how they are being applied, so that all that is done is, to use Ms Williams’ phrase, “rooted in humanity.”

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I have not yet seen the Minister’s letter of 30 April either, so I hope it does not impact on what I want to say. This has been an important debate on an issue that will surely always be regarded as a stain on our country’s reputation for decency and humanity.
The independent Williams review into the Windrush scandal stated that it was “foreseeable and avoidable.” The compensation scheme is intended to compensate claimants for the losses and adverse impacts suffered. The impact assessment indicates that there will be a policy review in October 2024. Against what criteria, and with what objective, will the policy be reviewed?
The impact assessment says:
“There is significant uncertainty surrounding the volume of claims and associated costs. Compensation and operational costs are estimated in line with the 11,500 eligible claimants planning  assumption … Total compensation costs range from £20.5 to £301.3 million … based on the volume range of 3,000 to 15,000 eligible claims”,
with a best estimate of £160.9 million. The impact assessment also has a paragraph headed “Description and scale of key monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’”, which starts by saying:
“Benefits (compensation payments) relate to righting the wrongs suffered by those from the Windrush generation.”
It is no wonder that concerns have been raised about ownership of the scheme being with the Home Office if the Government regard these payments under the scheme as benefits—for which, presumably, the recipients should be grateful
It may also explain why the compensation payments appear to be modest, bearing in mind that the Government have accepted that lives were ruined and families were torn apart. Taking the Government’s best-estimate figure of costs under the scheme of £160.9 million and dividing it by the 11,500 assumed eligible claimants gives an average compensation award per claimant of approximately £14,000. That is not a lot, bearing in mind that compensation payments are intended to cover losses ranging from detention and removal, loss of employment, loss of housing, loss of access to healthcare, loss of education, loss of access to banking and what is described as
“impact on normal daily life”,
which apparently includes such things as
“missed key family events or inability to travel”.
Included in that must also be the feelings of rejection, humiliation and injustice; of suddenly being told, wrongly—utterly wrongly—that you have no status and no right to remain in the country you have lived in for much if not all of your life, the country you proudly regarded as your home in the same way as Members of your Lordships’ House do. Is all that worth compensation—or perhaps, in the Government’s eyes, a benefit payment—of, on average, £14,000?
The Prime Minister once infamously described payment of £250,000 per annum for his newspaper column as “peanuts”. He now heads a Government who are offering, at an average of £14,000 per head, just one eighteenth of “peanuts” as compensation to the Windrush generation and others. The Government have said that the compensation scheme allows those who have suffered to avoid court proceedings in pursuit of justice. Can the Government say whether accepting compensation under the scheme does or does not then preclude an individual from taking legal proceedings if that is a step they wish to explore?
The scheme provides for awards that are tariff-based and awards based on actual loss. Tariff-based awards are determined on the balance of probabilities, but for awards for actual losses the Government require firm evidence that the losses claimed were actually incurred. One can envisage that being a major hurdle for many claimants after so many years have elapsed. There is provision for an independent review by an HMRC adjudicator where a claimant is not satisfied with the outcome of their claim. However, the Home Office can then reject, as I understand it, the recommendation of an independent reviewer.
The tariff awards provide for a maximum of £10,000 plus for deportation; awards for detention based on the length of that detention; awards for loss of access to employment up to a maximum of £1,147 of actual monthly net pay; denial of access to child benefit, child tax credit or working tax credit at £1,264, £2,500 and £1,100 respectively; denial of access to housing services at £1,000; denial of access to free NHS care at £500; denial of access to higher education at £500; denial of access to banking services at £200; and homelessness at £250 per month, up to a maximum of £25,000.
Then we come to the tariff awards under the heading “Impact on Life”. These are meant to cover injury to feelings, including anxiety, distress and reputational damage; family separation; immigration difficulties when attempting to return to the UK; and deterioration in physical or mental health. However, only one award can be made under the “Impact on Life” heading and there are six levels of award, ranging from just £250 at level 1 to £10,000 plus at level 6. Qualification for level 6 requires
“profound impacts on a claimant’s life which are likely to be irreversible”.
The Home Office, under the appeal arrangements, will still ultimately be the judge of whether the award—even if it decides the strict criteria are met—is £10,000 or moves into the £10,000 plus bracket, and by how much. The Government say there is no cap on compensation. In practice, it is clear that there are many caps.
There is provision for discretionary awards under the scheme, but it does not look as though that discretion is going to be exercised too often, since the impact assessment says, under the “Discretionary Award” heading,
“Due to lack of data, this loss category has not been included in the analysis.”
In the impact assessment, under the heading “Benefits” of compensation, it is revealed that:
“The Government will also mitigate the risk of litigation and associated legal costs, which is likely to be more expensive than compensation through the scheme.”
Under the heading “Objectives”, the impact assessment says that the scheme
“minimises the risk of litigation”
and
“operates as cost effectively as possible while meeting the above objectives”,
one of which is that it
“seeks to compensate eligible individuals for certain financial losses they have experienced as a result of difficulty in demonstrating their lawful immigration status.”
If the scheme is to compensate only for “certain financial losses” experienced, can the Government spell out the kind of financial losses experienced that are not covered by the scheme?
The scheme has obviously been drawn up in part with a view to saving money on costly legal proceedings. When it comes to the level of compensation, we are not talking about some relatively minor event in which some got hurt; this was much more than that. As the Williams review said:
“The many stories of injustice and hardship are heartbreaking, with jobs lost, lives uprooted and untold damage done to so many individuals and families … They had no reason to doubt their  status, or that they belonged in the UK. They could not have been expected to know the complexity of the law as it changed around them.”
Can the Government indicate the benchmark against which they determined that the levels of compensation we are talking about—with the average of around £14,000 per claimant—are fair and reasonable in the light of the words of the Williams review to which I have just referred?
The Williams review also stated quite clearly that the Home Office “must change its culture”. We do not want a similar situation arising over citizenship rights in the light of our withdrawal from the EU.
In March the Government said that they would bring forward a detailed formal response to the Williams review recommendations in the next six months. Does that timetable still stand in the light of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic?
A large number of points have been raised in this debate, and I hope that the Minister will respond as soon as is reasonably possible to any she is not in a position to respond to today. Subject to the Minister now persuading me otherwise, I just wish the levels of compensation that it is projected and intended will be paid matched the sincerity and genuineness of the Home Secretary’s Statement to Parliament in March, including the immediate apology, and I just wish the Government would now agree to reflect further on their compensation scheme.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for some really powerful and thoughtful contributions. Picking up on the last point from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the Government’s will to right the wrongs of the Windrush generation is not diminished. The scheme is just one part of a broader range of matters to be discussed in relation to the Windrush generation and the challenges they have faced and, in some cases, continue to face.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence—the first Back-Bench contributor to this debate—said, the Windrush generation were invited here to rebuild this country. Not only that, but they have contributed so much to the current battle against the coronavirus. I also refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord Bourne. I was delighted to hear that he had helped her set up Windrush Day, and I am delighted about the Windrush monument that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, helped set up.
There is no back-tracking or back-pedalling in our will to right the wrongs of this generation. I hope that, in some of the remarks I will make now in closing, I can demonstrate some of that. I also apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their not having received my letter. I will recirculate it so that all noble Lords who have not seen it can have sight of it.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, asked about the design, scope and funding of the scheme. This goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, as well. We are absolutely committed to making  sure that everyone who is due compensation can receive it. There is no cost cutting or penny pinching. We want everyone to have the compensation they are due. To that end, as I will demonstrate, we are helping them in their applications to achieve just that.
In designing the scheme, 650 responses to the call for evidence and nearly 1,500 responses to the public consultation informed the approach. We also held several public events, and Martin Forde QC, who is a very experienced barrister on all aspects of health law, was appointed by the previous Home Secretary to advise on the design of the compensation scheme.
Despite its name, the scheme is not limited to men and women who originally came to the UK from the Caribbean Commonwealth who have struggled to demonstrate their lawful status, and the eligibility criteria are clearly set out in the published scheme rules. The scheme covers a broad range of losses, and compensation is awarded according to both actual losses and tariff-based awards. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the award levels take into account existing precedents and ombudsman-recommended payments. While some categories of awards have an upper limit, there is no overall cap on the amount an individual can receive in compensation under the scheme. There is also an uncapped discretionary category, which is for significant impact or loss not necessarily identified within the scheme in order to make it as flexible as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the impact assessment. It was published in February and outlines the Home Office estimate that the Windrush Compensation Scheme will cost between £90 million and £250 million based on 11,500 eligible claims. It is clearly a very wide range. It has reduced since the previous impact assessment due to lower than anticipated claims to date, which a number of noble Lords mentioned. There remains a high degree of uncertainty around the likely volume of compensation claims and the level of claims against the different categories. As a result, the impact assessment uses a number of different volume scenarios with a wide range of possible costs.
That is why we announced earlier this year that we are extending the scheme until 2 April 2023, so we are doing all we can to raise awareness of the scheme. As I said previously, there is a balance to be struck between having a date far enough in the future to enable people to feel confident that they have time to make their claim, but soon enough to encourage people to put in their claim. We feel that the two-year extension provides this, but there remains the option to further extend the duration, if that is required—to answer noble Lords’ questions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the evidential requirements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, talked about the benefit of the doubt. We have made the evidential threshold as low as possible, but we ask applicants to provide as much information and evidence as they can so that the best assessment of their claim and personal circumstances can be made. We want people to get the maximum compensation to which they are entitled and will work with claimants to support them in this, for example by contacting other  government departments. To this end, a couple of individuals have already been awarded compensation for elements for which they did not originally claim, which demonstrates our commitment to working closely with claimants to ensure that they receive the compensation to which they are entitled.
However, I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is important that we are spending taxpayers’ money appropriately, and therefore we require that minimum level of information and evidence. Where awards are for actual losses, it is right that we seek to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the losses were incurred in order to fulfil our duty properly to manage taxpayers’ money.
The aim of this approach is to fully reimburse those who can evidence their actual losses. For those who cannot meet the evidential requirements for an award based on actual loss, a tariff award may be made. Our approach is comparable with the employment tribunal’s approach to calculating loss of earnings, where an award to cover actual losses generally would be paid where the claimant is able to sufficiently evidence what those losses could have been.
There were some opposing views on claimant assistance and legal advice, from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lady Bull. We have designed the compensation scheme to be as clear and simple as possible, so that people do not need legal assistance to make a claim. My noble friend Lord Blencathra outlined very eloquently the pitfalls of needing legal assistance, the lawyers scooping up all the money and the actual claimants not getting the money that they deserve. To that end, claim forms have been designed to be simple and easy to understand, and they were tested with users. Claimants need to complete only the sections of the form that are relevant to their claim, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out. However, for those who want or need support to make a claim, the Home Office has funded Citizens Advice to provide free independent advice and support, to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Bourne. This advice is available to individuals in the UK and overseas. A tender is currently open to select an organisation to provide free independent advice and support to claimants for the duration of the scheme. To provide that continuity of service, the contract with Citizens Advice will be extended until the tender process is complete.
Some have suggested that we should allow applicants to recover legal costs incurred in applying to the scheme, but as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, to do so might serve to encourage organisations to take advantage of people who are potentially very vulnerable, and charge them for unnecessary support to complete a claim. We have already heard of such terrible stories of no-win no-fee approaches. All we want is for the compensation to go to those who are entitled to it.
We aim to award compensation as quickly as possible. However, the time it takes to process each claim will depend on the complexity of individual cases, and it is right that we deal with cases properly. Where we can  resolve part of a claim more quickly than other parts, we are making interim payments to ensure that claimants receive their awards as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, pointed out that up to the end of December, only 36 payments had been made, totalling £62,198. I share the strength of feeling about these numbers, but many of these payments are interim payments, meaning that claimants may receive further awards later. Many more payments have been made since then. Further statistics will be published later this month.
As a comparator, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, suggests that claims under that scheme take 12 to 18 months to conclude. We may also be able to consider a payment under the support in urgent and exceptional circumstances policy, to provide support to members of the Windrush generation who have an urgent and exceptional need.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked about the cap. Again, I assure noble Lords that we will pay whatever compensation is due. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, talked about negative outcomes. We are continually monitoring the operation of this scheme, making amendments based on feedback, as changes to the rules earlier in the year, such as changing the date to 2023, demonstrated.
The department continues to work extensively with communities and stakeholders to raise awareness of both the Windrush compensation scheme and the Windrush scheme. To date, the Home Office has attended or hosted more than 100 engagement and outreach events and surgeries throughout the UK. We have used social media in a very targeted way to reach those who may be eligible to receive compensation and to encourage them to come to our events. Some 20,000 information cards have been distributed to affected groups and communications toolkits have been sent to almost 200 stakeholders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, suggested moving the operation of the scheme out of the Home Office. This was also suggested at Second Reading. I can understand the concerns of those who think that the department that caused the problem in the first place should not be dealing with this. However, moving the operation of the scheme out the Home Office would risk significant delay and I do not think that anyone wants that to happen.
The first stage in deciding a claim for compensation is to confirm an individual’s identity and eligibility; this is linked to the immigration status of the individual. It would be difficult to decouple this from the Home Office without increasing the time taken to process an individual’s claim and issue payments.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London talked about external scrutiny, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. We have put in place a number of measures to ensure that the scheme has an appropriate level of external scrutiny. To answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, we have an independent review process for those dissatisfied with their compensation offer. This is conducted by the HMRC Adjudicator—a non-departmental public body. The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Rosser,  both asked whether a compensation award is a full and final offer or whether it can be revisited. The award is always an offer. The claimant can accept it, at which point it becomes final, or they can request a review, as I have outlined. I hope that that helps answer the noble Lords’ questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also asked about help with housing and jobs in addition to monetary payment. Where people are in immediate need, we have put in place measures to give them the support needed, such as a dedicated vulnerable persons team, which has helped more than 1,400 people, including with access to benefits and housing. Financial compensation gives claimants the freedom to choose how they wish to proceed. On 19 March, the Home Secretary announced an expanded cross-government Windrush working group, which will take a strategic view of a range of issues relating to Windrush and wider race inequalities. It will aim to develop initiatives to improve the lives of those affected by bringing together government and community stakeholders to co-design and deliver the response. That might be through employment support programmes, dedicated mental health support and specialist education and training schemes.
The noble Lord asked whether we paid for the flights of people who have been repatriated. I can tell him that 35 payments have been made under the support in urgent and exceptional circumstances policy. The total value of the payments approved is £46,795. In addition to these payments, three exceptional payments for flights to return to the UK were made before the official launch of the policy on 17 December. In addition to the three payments made for flights before the launch of the urgent and exceptional scheme, a further four payments had been made under the scheme to return individuals to the UK.
In addition, as interim independent adviser to the scheme, Martin Forde continues to provide external scrutiny and challenge on its operation and implementation. We continue to listen and respond to feedback received from stakeholders, including through the Windrush stakeholder advisory group which was launched last September, to ensure that the scheme is operating effectively and delivering for those whom it is designed to compensate. The changes announced by the Government earlier this year demonstrate our commitment to this and build on changes made to the rules last October.
I want to place on record again that no information provided by individuals as part of a claim for compensation will be used for immigration enforcement action.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, asked about reputational damage and where that would come in under the compensation scheme. It would be considered as part of the “Impact on Life” category, as would grief, which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, asked about posthumous awards that might go to somebody’s estate. There absolutely is scope for that, and I think that posthumous awards have been made.
I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who asked about an annual conference. I am very happy to take that idea away. In her report, Wendy Williams recommends reconciliation events, so we will certainly consider that suggestion.
To go back to the compensation scheme, all the elements mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would qualify for compensation.
My noble friend Lord Randall talked about pensions. This is not my expert area, so, if he is amenable, I will write to him.
I want to come to the lessons learned review, and I ask noble Lords to indulge me if I go a little over my time. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, asked whether we will agree to all the recommendations in the review. Wendy Williams was really clear that we should resist the temptation to respond rapidly and suggested that we instead undertake a period of reflection, to engage staff at all levels to identify what should change. The Home Secretary has therefore committed to publishing the department’s response to the report within six months of publication. To address the point from the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Lord Rosser, that would be on 19 September, if we are talking about six months from 19 March.
Noble Lords talked about various points in history when the Home Office failed the Windrush generation. Wendy Williams was clear that the injustices spanned 70 years. I would like to put on record at this point that we all need to look to ourselves and to the part that successive Governments played in how the Windrush generation was let down. Rather than the blame game, we all have our part to play.
The Windrush lessons learned implementation team has been set up to lead the response to the report, working with teams across the department and externally to take the steps needed to create a department that we can all be proud of.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord Sheikh talked about trust and culture. That is at the heart of what the Home Secretary will reflect upon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London talked about education and empathy. Wendy Williams made a number of points about training and education, which we are looking at very carefully. Outreach events that the department is currently running allow civil servants the opportunity to hear the stories of those who have been impacted. I can confirm that people working in the Home Office have asked me personally not to forget about the Windrush report. Yes, the Home Office has been institutionally thoughtless, but there are a lot of people working there who do not want us to forget about the Wendy Williams report, or our reflection on it and response to it.
We have already announced that we will launch an expanded cross-government Windrush working group to develop programmes to improve the lives of those affected. We will continue to listen to stakeholders as we take forward establishing this group and are committed to ensuring that the Home Office and the wider Government protect, support and listen to every single part of the community they serve.
Finally, I will talk about the EU settlement scheme and EU citizens. The EU settlement scheme has been designed to make it easy for EU citizens and their family members who want to stay in the UK to get the UK immigration status that they need. It is designed precisely to avoid another Windrush. We think that the constitutive system that we have introduced is the best approach, because it provides EU citizens and their family members with clarity about what they need to apply for, and when, and the secure evidence of their status that they need. We now have over 3.4 million applications, of which over 3.1 million have been concluded. People have until 30 June next year to apply.
I have gone over time, as usual. I am very grateful to noble Lords for the contributions that they have made. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate.
Motion agreed.
Virtual Proceeding suspended.

Covid-19: Government Response
 - Statement

The Statement was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

Baroness Pitkeathley: Good evening, my Lords. The Virtual Proceeding on the repeat of the Urgent Question will now commence. I will call the Minister, who will repeat the Statement in the usual way. There will then be 10 minutes for questions, led by the Opposition Front Bench. The Minister will respond to each question in turn. I will call each Back-Bench Member on the speakers’ list to ask a supplementary question and the Minister will answer. I ask noble Lords to ask brief questions and give brief answers. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to them asking a supplementary question and returned to mute once their question has finished.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, with leave I shall repeat the Answer given to an Urgent Question asked in the other place yesterday. In the repeat, I will use the most up-to-date figures, which have changed since yesterday. The Answer is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, we have flattened the curve of this epidemic, ensured that the NHS is not overwhelmed and expanded testing capacity to over 100,000 tests a day. As a Government, we are working resolutely to defeat the coronavirus. There are two important areas where I want to update the House today.
First, on the expansion of our work to test, track and trace, we have now built a national testing infrastructure of scale. Because we have this extra capacity, we will be delivering up to 30,000 tests a day to residents and staff in elderly care homes, making sure that symptomatic and asymptomatic staff and residents can all be tested. Our care system represents the best of us, supporting  our loved ones with tenderness and dedication at their time of greatest need. Through this unprecedented expansion of testing capacity, we can give them the certainty and confidence that high-quality testing can provide.
Secondly, we are working to strengthen the resilience of the NHS. We currently have 3,382 spare critical care beds in the NHS, and that does not include the capacity provided by our Nightingale hospitals, including the 460-bed Sunderland Nightingale, which opened earlier today. We should all be very proud that we have built up the NHS so fast and that our collective national effort has helped to protect the NHS and flatten the curve. As a result, not only have we been able to restore some NHS services; we are in a position to be able to place the London Nightingale on standby. This is good news, because our NHS has not been overwhelmed by this crisis and remains open to those who need care, which means that this nation’s shared sacrifice is having an impact.
Throughout its time, this Chamber has borne witness to so much, and it has borne witness to the nation’s resolve once more. I am delighted that the British people are well and truly rising to this incredibly difficult challenge.”
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement. I point out that the Commons took an hour to receive and discuss this update; we are getting 10 minutes. It is almost two weeks since I saw the Minister across this virtual Dispatch Box, which seems a long time in a pandemic. When we went into lockdown in March, he seemed to indicate his enthusiasm for being accountable to the House in lockdown. I regret to say that I do not believe that he or his colleagues have matched that aspiration. I place on record that it is shocking that noble Lords across the House are reduced to submitting vital questions about Covid to a lottery—a ballot of topical questions. That is not serious accountability. Unprecedented times need unprecedented procedures.
I have two questions. First, will the Minister support a proposal that he and his colleagues should come to the House every day and have a Covid-related Question Time, morning or evening, which would discuss the contents of the daily press conference and other urgent matters? Secondly, how does the Minister intend to fulfil his promise to the House that there would be an eight-week review of the Covid emergency legislation? By my reckoning, those eight weeks will be up in two weeks’ time.

Lord Bethell: I welcome the noble Baroness’s questions on accountability. However, I remind her that not all Covid-related matters are covered by the department of health; Ministers have been in front of the House every day it has been open, answering questions on Covid, and they have given fulsome and thoughtful answers to questions and scrutiny. I welcome also her question on the eight-week review, which, as she says, is coming up in a fortnight. I will find out how the usual channels wish to mark that occasion in the House, and I would welcome the chance to submit the Government to scrutiny on the matter.

Baroness Brinton: From these Liberal Democrat Benches we echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. We believe that lockdown should be lifted only using the WHO advice for “test, trace and isolate” to keep people safe. On 23 April, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, why “isolate” had been dropped from the Government’s slogan. He told your Lordships’ House:
“Turning to track and trace, I confirm that isolation is an absolutely intrinsic part of the track and trace regime: it just does not rhyme so well, so you never put it at the end, but ‘track, trace and isolate’ is the programme.”—[Official Report, 23/4/20; col. 166.]
Today, the Department of Health and Social Care’s Dear Colleague newsletter does not mention “isolate” in the context of lifting lockdown. Can the Minister say what evidence there is of a government plan for isolation, and how will we know that people are isolating, which is absolutely vital if we are to succeed in stopping transmission and keeping people safe? Although testing has increased it has not yet reached a consistent number of 100,000 per day, so what evidence is there for the Prime Minister’s new target of 200,000 per day by the end of May being delivered?

Lord Bethell: The Government’s commitment to isolation is spelled out clearly in guidelines published by Public Health England, and it is promoted every day with the Government’s “stay at home” slogan. On the 200,000-test aspiration, we have put in place a remarkable platform for testing. We have strong partnerships with important companies, we have sourced new supply chains of critical reagent swabs and other supplies that are in short measure, and we are making the logistical arrangements necessary for a massive expansion of testing. I believe that those will take us to whatever is necessary to meet the testing needs of the country.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My noble friend has described a situation that is still worrying. The rate of deaths and of new infections is still much higher than we wish, and we may soon be faced with a situation where the rules in different geographical locations or in different institutions vary, so we need more information. To enable us to seek optimum changes, could he please publish more information—for example, on how many cases came from hospitals and where, how many involve hospital or care workers, and how many involve other key workers, overseas visitors, self-isolators and the like?

Lord Bethell: The Government have gone about the Covid crisis with a great amount of transparency; a very large number of figures are published every single day. I am afraid that some of the questions my noble friend asks are beyond the reach of measurement in our statistical accountability at the moment, but I completely take on board and celebrate her call for transparency. We are working as hard as we can to get as many numbers out to the public as possible.

Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, tracking, tracing and isolating can be effective only if there is adequate testing. It was reassuring to hear the Prime Minister say today that the target was to be 200,000 tests a day by the end of this month. Earlier, he referred to 250,000 tests a day. Can the Minister confirm that  millions of tests a week will be available, not just to patients and staff in hospitals and care homes but to the whole British public? In particular, they should be available to workers so that they can get tested and have the confidence to go to work, while consumers can have the confidence to go to restaurants and hotels, bars and venues. Can he also confirm whether pin-prick antibody tests will be available in the millions later this month to the whole British public so that people such as me, who have had Covid-19, can get tested? This would show that we have the immunity to go out to work and participate in the economy without infecting people or getting infected ourselves.

Lord Bethell: “Track, test and isolate” does not necessarily depend on doing millions of tests. South Korea, which has an extremely effective regime, does only 20,000 tests a day. That is because its whole society has worked hard to get the prevalence of the infection as low as possible. I celebrate the fact that the British public have committed to the lockdown, but I cannot disguise from the House the fact that the lockdown needs to continue to get the prevalence rate lower.

Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, yesterday the deputy chief scientist said that we needed to “get to grips” with what is occurring in our care homes. As data shows that deaths in care homes are rising while hospital deaths are plateauing, what specific actions are Her Majesty’s Government taking to put a stop to this dreadful crisis, which is unfolding before our very eyes?

Lord Bethell: The right reverend Prelate is entirely right to focus on care homes. It is an awful aspect of this disease that it attacks the most vulnerable who live in enclosed environments such as care homes. They have been an absolute priority for the Government. One aspect of our response is to massively increase testing in care homes. The increased capacity that we announced last week has been shifted massively towards care home testing. We are using mobile units and satellite drop-offs to increase the screening of patients and care home workers.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I was contacted for help by a manufacturer, Thomas Olsen, who was responding to an appeal on television by the Health and Social Care Secretary, Matt Hancock, for ventilators to be made at scale by British companies. With my assistance, and after several attempts, we came up against a brick wall. Over a month later he discovered by chance that sufficient ventilators had been sourced, yet no message was sent down to all those working hard to produce them. Will the Minister ensure, first, that when such an appeal is made in future a single contact point is provided, rather as with Crimestoppers, so that there is no doubt how to get in touch and, secondly, that when the appeal is fulfilled the responders are given the courtesy of being stood down?

Lord Bethell: I completely acknowledge the situation and the testimony of the noble Lord. The response by British companies to the ventilator challenge was incredible and, at times, overwhelming. No discourtesy was meant  to the firm that he mentioned and I completely take on board his comments about the importance of courtesy, respect and a proper feedback mechanism in such circumstances.

Baroness Pitkeathley: Lord Dobbs. As Lord Dobbs is not responding, we will go to Lord Liddle.

Lord Liddle: Following up on the question from my noble friend Lady Thornton, when the number of deaths in Britain is now the highest in Europe and the second highest in the world, do the Government really believe that their level of accountability to Parliament matches the scale of the crisis? If they can manage a press conference every day, can they not manage a regular parliamentary session which allows for proper questioning of what is going on?

Lord Bethell: I return to my comments to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. In the Lords at least, Ministers have been on the Front Bench answering questions on Covid every day since the Lords reopened. Subjects have ranged from social security and housing to, in my case, the Department of Health and Social Care. We remain accountable for the measures that we have put in place. The media also have a huge role in that scrutiny. We remain committed to keeping Parliament open, despite the lockdown regime, and completely respect the importance of parliamentary scrutiny.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, the time allotted for the Statement is now up. The day’s Virtual Proceedings are now complete and are adjourned. Good evening.
Virtual Proceeding adjourned at 8.16 pm.